3 Convention against Torture, the act had been carried out with the acquiescence of a State agent. 10. Regarding the formulation of the Convention against Torture, it is enough to say that the Committee against Torture, created by this Convention, has stated that: [W]here State authorities […] know or have reasonable grounds to believe that acts of torture or ill-treatment are being committed by non-State officials or private actors and they fail to exercise due diligence to prevent, investigate, prosecute and punish such non-State officials or private actors […] the State bears responsibility […] for consenting to or acquiescing in such impermissible acts. Since the failure of the State to exercise due diligence to intervene to stop, sanction and provide remedies to victims of torture facilitates and enables non-State actors to commit acts impermissible under the Convention with impunity, the State's indifference or inaction provides a form of encouragement and/or de facto permission The Committee has applied this principle to States parties failure to prevent and protect victims from genderbased violence, such as rape, domestic violence, female genital mutilation and trafficking.10 11. Also, referring to Article 1 of the Convention against Torture, which embodies similar obligations to those in the above-mentioned Article 3 of the CIPST, the Special Rapporteur on torture indicated that it: has frequently been used to exclude violence against women outside direct State control from the scope of protection of CAT. However, the Special Rapporteur wishes to recall that the language used in Article 1 of the Convention concerning consent and acquiescence by a public official clearly extends State obligations into the private sphere and should be interpreted to include State failure to protect persons within its jurisdiction from torture and ill-treatment committed by private individuals.11 12. Regarding the CIPST, three points should be highlighted. The first is that the American Convention, in force since July 1978, does not contain a definition of this conduct and the Court has had to construct a definition based on its powers as an organ authorized to provide an authentic interpretation of the provisions of the Convention, so that the Court’s concept of torture, whether or not defined in its judgments but present in the mind of the judges, should not inevitably be the same as the concept set out in said Conventions and should not always be applied. The second is that not all the States Parties to the American Convention are parties to the CIPST, so that, to date, the Court may be faced with hearing a case of torture without being able to apply the latter Convention directly. Indeed, the InterAmerican Convention against Torture is not applied in this Judgment, and it is not used to shed light on the interpretation of the provisions of the American Convention. The third recalls that the Court itself determined that, after considering the concept of torture developed in the European human rights system and the (b) A person who at the instigation of a public servant or employee mentioned in subparagraph (a) orders, instigates or induces the use of torture, directly commits it or is an accomplice thereto. 9 Article 1(1) of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment establishes: For the 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 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. 10 Committee against Torture, General Comment No. 2 on implementation of Article 2 by States Parties, U.N. doc. CAT/C/GC/2, of 24 January 2008, para. 18. 11 2008 Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak, doc. A/HRC/7/3 of 15 January 2008, para. 31.