2.2) Example 2- Australia (see Annex 4) The Committee recommended that the Australian Government incorporate fully the CAT principles into its domestic laws, and for an enactment of specific offence of torture. As a result, the Australian Government enacted the Crimes Legislation Amendment Act 2009 which defines “torture” based on article 1 of the CAT. 2.3) Discussions on the Article 274.2 of Australia’s Crimes Legislation Amendment Act 2009 Although based on article 1 of CAT, the Australia definition appears to be wider in scope as it does not incorporate the saving clause provided in CAT, that is, of “it does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions”. An illustration of a circumstance that may come under the saving clause, is when a person suffers mental torture due to imprisonment, and feels degraded when being handcuffed.These experiences cannot be regarded as torturous and degrading treatment under the CAT, as they are incidental to a legal process. Under the Australian law, however, such acts may constitute torture. The 20 years of imprisonment for committing the act of torture may amount to torture, due to the lengthy prison term. The CAT however does not specify specific punishments for state parties to adopt; it is left to the Governments to decide accordingly. 2.4) The Facilitator’s Views on Torture under the Internal Security Act (ISA) Suffering that arises from the sentences of lawful sanctions does not fall under the definition of torture under the CAT. Lawful sanction is a conviction of offence, for example, the imposition of penalty under the Penal Code. However, punishments based on suspicions cannot be qualified as a lawful sanction. Therefore detentions under preventive laws such as the Malaysian Internal Security Act (ISA) do not fall under the category of lawful sanction, and are considered illegal and may amount to torture, despite the fact that the ISA is a valid law in the country. 8