treatment. Furthermore, that the CAT Committee is ad idem with the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture in its practice as it has found instances of torture without raising the question of intensity of pain. 196. Therefore, the Applicants submit that the distinction between torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment is the purpose of the attack and the powerlessness of the victim rather than the degree of pain. 197. Citing the CAT Committee’s General Comment No. 2 (2007) on implementation of Article 2 of the CAT, they underscore that where state authorities have “reasonable grounds to believe” that acts of torture or other cruel treatment are being meted out by private individuals and fail to exercise due diligence to “prevent, investigate, prosecute and punish such actors”, then the state will bear the responsibility. The state’s “indifference or inaction provides a form of encouragement or de facto permission.” 198. The Applicants contend that the conduct complained of in the submissions satisfies both the threshold for cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and torture, given the infliction of severe pain and suffering on PWA motivated by discriminatory intent to dismember them, whilst they are still alive, and powerless in the face of an armed ambush. 199. The Applicants aver that the physical attacks, mutilations, and other forms of violence against PWA for purposes of obtaining their body-parts is cruel, degrading and inhumane treatment. They argue that the Respondent State has not intervened adequately to prevent such acts, or prosecute those responsible, in order to create an effective deterrent for such behaviour. Therefore, liability can be imputed to the Respondent State. 200. The Applicants by illustration submit, that a 70-year-old woman with albinism was attacked by five men in her home where they severed her left thumb in Mlalo Bongoi village, Tanga region. 47