treatment, provided for under Article 5 of the Charter, due to the inactions of its agent, the Justice of the Peace. ii. Allegation that the Applicant was brutalised by the police authorities 62. The record of proceedings reveals that the Applicant reported that when he was taken to the Court to record a statement, he did not know the difference between the “Justice of the Peace” and the police authorities. In fact, the Applicant confessed that he had unintentionally killed the deceased while in a state of anger and after having smoked “bhangi”. He further states that the wound which the Justice of the Peace saw on his mouth was inflicted by the policeman, when he confessed to him that he had committed the murder under the influence of drugs.23 * 63. The Respondent State avers that the Applicant was “physically assessed and some wounds were noted on his body; although he did not tell the Justice of Peace how he got the wounds on his body”. *** 64. The Court recalls its jurisprudence on the definition of torture set out in Article 1 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT), which it endorsed in Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania,24 that: For purposes of this Convention, the term “torture” means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or 23 Record of Proceedings before the High Court, page 22, paragraph 2. 24 Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 144. 17