common assault or other crimes, the government should directly advance the Convention’s overarching aim of preventing torture and ill-treatment. Although a number of national laws penalize certain acts amounting to torture, there is no specific legislation dealing with ‘torture’ per se. Naming and defining this crime will promote the Convention’s aim, inter alia, by alerting everyone, including perpetrators, victims, and the public, to the special gravity of the crime of torture. Codifying this crime will also (a) emphasise the need for appropriate punishment that takes into account the gravity of the offence, (b) strengthen the deterrent effect of the prohibition itself, (c) enhance the ability of responsible officials to track the specific crime of torture and (d) enable and empower the public to monitor and, when required, to challenge State action as well as State inaction that violates the Convention. 2. Discrepancies between the Convention’s definition and that incorporated into domestic law create actual or potential loopholes for impunity. In some cases, although similar language may be used, its meaning may be qualified by domestic law or by judicial interpretation. Thus, it is advisable to ensure that all branches of the the government adhere to the definition set forth in the Convention for the purpose of defining the obligations of the State. 3. At the same time, broader domestic definitions also advance the object and purpose of this Convention so long as they contain and are applied in accordance with the 52