pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984) provides a definition of torture in the following terms: "For the purpose of this Convention, 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, for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions." The Respondents did not adduce, however, any evidence to substantiate the allegations of torture or ill treatment that may constitute an offence under international law. The Tribunal is, therefore, not in a position to determine whether the third Respondent has been subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. We consider that the right to admit or to expel an alien remains squarely within the preserve of the sovereignty of the Applicant, subject to the observance of minimum human rights standards, for the treatment of aliens. The American Commission (vide Malcolm N. Shaw QC in International Law, fifth edition); 2003, stated at page 734, in the Neer case (4RIAA, pp. 60, 61-2; 1926; 3AD, p. 227) that: "the treatment of an alien, in order to constitute an international delinquency, should amount to an outrage, to bad faith, to wilful neglect of duty, or to an insufficiency of government action so far short of international standards that every reasonable and impartial man recognise its insufficiency". Having reviewed all the circumstances of the present application, we consider that the third Respondent did not substantiate his allegations of torture or ill treatment and that the Applicant's deportation of the third Respondent in the particular circumstances of the case did not constitute an international delinquency. We, therefore, hold as follows: a) the Respondents have not exhausted local remedies and, the Tribunal has consequently no jurisdiction over the matter; and b) the Respondents have not substantiated their allegations of torture or ill treatment so as to render the deportation order made against the third Respondent an international delinquency. We make no order as to costs. Delivered in open court this 11th day of June 2010, at Windhoek, in the Republic of Namibia. ............................................................................... H.E Justice Ariranga Govindasamy Pillay PRESIDENT ................................................................................. H.E Justice Isaac Jamu Mtambo, SC MEMBER ................................................................................. H.E Justice Dr Luis Antonio Mondlane MEMBER ................................................................................. H.E Justice Dr Rigoberto Kambovo MEMBER 4