Chapter 8 • International Legal Standards for the Protection of Persons Deprived of Their Liberty the findings of the European Commission of Human Rights, the Court accepted that Mr. Aksoy had, inter alia, been subjected to “Palestinian hanging”, meaning that he had been “stripped naked, with his arms tied together behind his back, and suspended by his arms”. In the view of the Court: “this treatment could only have been deliberately inflicted; indeed, a certain amount of preparation and exertion would have been required to carry it out. It would appear to have been administered with the aim of obtaining admissions or information from the applicant. In addition to the severe pain which it must have caused at the time, the medical evidence shows that it led to a paralysis of both arms which lasted for some time... . The Court considers that this treatment was of such a serious and cruel nature that it can only be described as torture.”55 2.3.3 Corporal punishment As noted above, the Human Rights Committee considers that “corporal punishment, including excessive chastisement ordered as punishment for a crime or as an educative or disciplinary measure”, is covered by the prohibition in article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.56 This view was confirmed in the Osbourne case, where the author had been given a 15-year prison sentence and ordered to receive 10 strokes of the tamarind switch for illegal possession of a firearm, robbery with aggravation and wounding with intent. It was held in this case that “irrespective of the nature of the crime that is to be punished, however brutal it may be, it is the firm opinion of the Committee that corporal punishment constitutes cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment” contrary to article 7 of the Covenant, which was thus violated.57 The Committee informed the Government that it was “under an obligation to refrain from carrying out the sentence of whipping upon Mr. Osbourne”, and, further, that it “should ensure that similar violations do not occur in the future by repealing the legislative provisions that allow for corporal punishment”.58 ***** With regard to Namibia, the Committee against Torture recommended “the prompt abolition of corporal punishment” insofar as it was still legally possible under Namibian law to impose such punishment.59 This Committee has also expressed concern with regard to the situation in Saudi Arabia, since “sentencing to, and imposition of, corporal punishments by judicial and administrative authorities, including, in particular, flogging and amputation of limbs, ... are not in conformity with” the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.60 **** 55 Ibid., p. 2279, para. 64. 56 See General Comment No. 20, United Nations Compilation of General Comments, p. 139, para. 5. 57 Communication No. 759/1997, G. Osbourne v. Jamaica (Views adopted on 15 March 2000), in UN doc. GAOR, A/55/40 (vol. II), p. 138, para. 9.1; emphasis added. 58 Ibid., para. 11. 59 UN doc. GAOR, A/52/44, p. 37, para. 250. 60 See UN doc. CAT/C/XXVIII/CONCL.6 Conclusions and Recommendations: Saudia Arabia, adopted on 15 May 2002, para. 4(b). 330 Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers