Yes, I would like to briefly come back to the definition of torture. In fact, under international law, torture can be defined as acute suffering inflicted by a public agent—in other words, an agent of the government—either intentionally or with the approval of an agent of the government, with a view to extracting a confession or for the purposes of punishing the detainee. However, it is important to remember that the actual name of the U.N. convention is the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. All of those other types of treatment are subject to the same prohibition as torture, in the strict sense of the term.
But let's briefly recall the infamous case of mistreatment of persons with mental disabilities at the Centre hospitalier Robert-Giffard in Quebec. As I recall, the patient had spent six or seven days in his excrement. Now the question was never put to the Committee against Torture, but having read some of the comments made by the Committee, I can assure you that it would have considered this type of treatment to be cruel, inhuman or degrading, within the meaning of the Convention, even though it wasn't torture per se. It is probable that hospital staff did not intend to torture the individual, in the strictest sense of the term, but this type of negligence is strongly condemned and prohibited under the United Nations Convention against Torture.