fair and adequate compensation) of the United Nations Convention against Torture (UNCAT). In Kisoki v. Sweden187 the complainant, a Zairian (now Democratic Republic of the Congo), sought refugee status in Sweden, and this was rejected. In finding that Ms. Kisoki, who was raped at home in front of her children and in prison, was personally at risk of being subject to torture if returned to Zaire, the Committee against Torture took account of all relevant considerations, including Ms. Kisoki’s political affiliation and activities, her history of detention and torture and the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass human rights violations. The Committee found that Ms. Kisoki’s forced return to Zaire would violate Article 3 (non-refoulement) of the Convention against Torture (CAT). The Committee, however despite the positive determination of the existence of the risk of torture if Ms. Kisoki would return to Zaire, did not make any reference to the form of torture (i.e. rape) that she had experienced or was at risk of being subjected to. Thus “the sexualized nature of the torture, particularly the rape[s], was erased from the committee’s consideration of the issue”.188 The CAT made a similar finding in the later case of A.S. v. Sweden,189 again implying that forced marriage and sexual slavery are forms of torture without necessarily dealing with the gender aspect of the violence as stated in the complaint. The facts of the case were that the applicant was an Iranian citizen, seeking refugee status in Sweden after being forced into a short-term marriage (sighe or muta’a) where she did not live with her husband, but was at his disposal for sexual services whenever required. When A.S. fell in love with a Christian man, she was caught and arrested by the police and taken to her husband’s home, where she was severely beaten by him. Subsequently, she left the country with her son. After the Swedish Immigration Board rejected her case for asylum, she brought the case before the Committee against Torture. The CAT decided that she risked torture and execution upon return to Iran and that forced return would constitute a violation of Article 3 of the CAT (non-refoulement). Since the forms of torture she referred to were being forced to remain the ‘wife’ of the husband, endure his domestic violence and provide him sexual services, it can be concluded that the torture the CAT sought to protect A.S. from, was indeed these forms of gender-based violence. That rapes by public officials constitute torture has been firmly and explicitly established in two of the more recent cases decided by CAT. One of these cases also held that discrimination on the grounds of gender is one of the impermissible purposes of torture. In C.T. and K.M. v. Sweden,190 Sweden announced the deportation of C.T. and her son, K.M. to Rwanda. C.T. sought to stop the deportation on grounds of breach of Article 3 of the UNCAT as she feared she would be immediately detained and tortured by the Rwandan Directorate of Military Intelligence. She was a political activist in Rwanda; she was raped repeatedly during her detention and had become pregnant with her son as a result of the rapes. Finding in her favour, the CAT held that C.T. was subjected to torture in the past, referring to the fact that she was repeatedly raped by public officials. It also held that her son, who is a product of the rapes she endured, is a constant reminder of those rapes. In V.L. v. Switzerland,191 a woman claimed that prior to her initial departure from Belarus, she had been interrogated and raped by three police officers seeking information on the whereabouts of her husband, who was a political activist and critical of the President of Belarus. The CAT dealt with two important points in its decision in this case. One, it linked the facts of the complaint to the torture definition in Article 1 and held that the rape 187 Pauline Muzonzo Paku Kisoki v. Sweden (CAT Comm. No. 41/1996 (1996). 188 Lambert, C, ‘Partial Sites and Partial Sightings: Women and the UN Human Rights Treaty System,’ in S. Picketing and C. Lambert (eds.), Global Issues, Women and Justice (Sydney: Sydney Institute of Criminology Series No. 19, 2004), pps. 152-153. 189 A.S. v. Sweden (CAT Comm. No. 149/1999 (2001). 190 C.T. and K.M. v. Sweden (CAT Comm. No. 279/2005) ¶ 7.5. 191 V.L. v. Switzerland (CAT Comm. No. 262/2005). REDRESS | INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES 51