violent crime to be among these exceptional circumstances that cannot constitute justification of torture.264 157. The term “torture is defined in Article CAT as “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 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 is clear from this definition that it covers both the physical and mental integrity of the person. The HRC has emphasised in relation to the ICCPR that “the prohibition in article relates not only to acts that cause physical pain but also to acts that cause mental suffering to the victim. 158. By depriving persons of their nationality, States risk violating the absolute and customary prohibition of torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In and of itself, deprivation of nationality may cause severe mental suffering, as the identity of the person concerned has been taken away and that person is left in a state of uncertainty. It was recognized by the IACtHR in Maritza Urrutia v. Guatemala that “the elements of the concept of torture [...] include methods to obliterate the personality of the victim in order to attain certain objectives, such as ... intimidation or punishment .265 In Trop v. Dulles, the United States Supreme Court found that denaturalization was cruel and unusual because “the punishment strips the citizen of his status in the national and international political community. …. In short, the expatriate has lost the right to have rights. 266 In addition to directly constituting inhumane treatment, measures following the deprivation of nationality, such as the leaving the individual stateless, may also violate this provision of international law and could rise to the level of constituting torture. The ACmHPR emphasised this by stating that “[b]y forcing [applicants] to live as stateless persons under degrading conditions, the government … has deprived them of their family and is depriving their families of the men’s support, and this constitutes a violation of the dignity of a human being, thereby violating Article 5 of the [ACHPR .267 Thus, the deprivation of nationality in the case of an individual at risk of statelessness, may cause a level of mental anguish that constitutes torture, in light of the fact that stateless people are left in legal limbo, lacking access to basic rights. 159. A State shall not cause the arbitrary detention of a person, either by expulsion or denaturalization (see also Principle 9.4 on liberty and security of person). Specific protections exist for particularly vulnerable groups in detention, including stateless individuals, who are at a particularly high risk of arbitrary and indefinite detention.268 The UN states that any deprivation of liberty can only be carried out in accordance with provisions found in the law269 and the HRC held that detention 264 CAT, ‘General Comment No. ’ CAT C GC , para . IACtHR, Maritza Urrutia v Guatemala (2003), Series C No. 103, para 94. 266 United States Supreme Court, Trop v Dulles, 356 US 86 (1958), available at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/356/86/. 267 ACmHPR, Amnesty International v Zambia (1999), Communication 212/98. See also ACmHPR, John K. Modise v Botswana (2000), Communication 97/93_14AR. 268 See e.g. UNHCR, ‘Handbook on Protection of Stateless Persons’ June . 269 ’Body of Principles for the Protection of All persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment‘, UNGA Res December 1988) UN Doc A/RES/43/173. 265 77