 Inflicting severe physical or mental pain or suffering  Doing so deliberately For any of the following reasons  To obtain information or a confession from the person being tortured or from someone else  To punish that person for something they, or another person, has done or is suspected of having done  To intimidate or coerce that person or another person  For any reason 'based on discrimination' 67. The relevant points in understanding the nature of torture are that the act complained of need not be physical with accompanying visible signs, it admits of other acts with the capacity to affect the mental faculties of the victim by causing amongst others severe mental delusion coupled mostly with fear, anguish and suffering. Additionally, such act must be inflicted by a public officer acting in an official capacity and carrying on same with the required intention. The situ of the act is of no consequence. 68. In the instant case to address the allegation of torture by the Applicant, the Court recalls that he alleged that following the decision to issue him a warning and as well as put him on a judicial watch list and its wide publication, the Applicant said he suffered grave and grievous perversion of justice that had mentally tortured him, traumatized and demoralized him and these amounts to violation of his freedom from torture particularly mental torture. 69. The Court having imputed the facts as pleaded by the Applicant to the components of torture listed above, notes that they do not support the allegation of torture. As a start there is no indication that the alleged pain and suffering was intentionally inflicted by the Respondent, nor that same was inflicted for specific purpose(s) such as to obtain information, to punish, or to intimidate, or for any reason based on discrimination; neither is there evidence to support that the act (the publication), was carried out by or at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of State authorities. 70. In this wise, the court comes to the inevitable conclusion that the act of the Respondent in publishing the warning letter does not meet the criteria for torture and thus hold that the right of the Applicant to be free from torture was not violated by the Respondent. 21