The definition of the Convention on “Torture” does not cover all ill-treatment that causes mental or physical suffering, but only such serious forms. According to the sectional analysis of the MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRES on the CTU, which contained President Reagan`s transmission of the convention to the Senate for review and approval, the definition of torture should be interpreted “in a relatively limited way by the convention, which corresponds to the common understanding of torture as an extreme practice, which is generally condemned.” 5 For example, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has proposed that coarse treatment, which is a matter of police brutality, “although regrettable, is not limited to “torture” within the meaning of the Convention, which “is generally reserved for extreme, deliberate and unusually cruel practices… [how] continuous systematic beating, the use of electrical currents on sensitive parts of the body and fastens or fastens in positions causing extreme pain. 6 This conception of torture as a serious form of ill-treatment is also highlighted by Article 16 of the Cat, which obliges the parties to the Convention to “prevent, under their jurisdiction, further acts of cruelty, inhuman or degrading acts or punishments that do not boil down to acts of torture”7 and, therefore, , that not all forms of inhuman treatment are torture. The United States ratified the CTU, subject to certain declarations, reservations and agreements, including the fact that the treaty was not self-sustaining and required the application of enforcement laws by the U.S. courts. In order to ensure that the United States complies with CTU`s obligations to criminalize all acts of torture, the United States adopted Chapter 113C of the U.S. Criminal Code, which prohibits torture outside the United States (torture, which takes place within the United States, was already prohibited by several federal and national laws criminalizing acts such as assaults batteries and murder). The applicability and scope of these statutes was widely circulated by the ministries of defence and justice in 2002. The memorandums have been criticized by some for defending an overly restrictive view of treatment as torture.
In late 2004, the Department of Justice issued a memorandum that replaced its previous memo and amended some of its findings.