10. 中国香港的立场是《刑事犯罪(酷刑)条例》第 2(1)条“包括”一词表明不担任附表所列职位的人仍可以是“公务人员”，但委员会仍然关切的是，“公务人员”一词缺乏一个适用范围更广的定义，可能在实践中无法起诉该附表中没有明确提到的其他官员。此外，委员会关切地注意到，中国香港没有采取行动废除同一《条例》第 3(4)条所载可作为中国香港法律下或非法行为发生地法律下的辩护依据的“合法权限、理由或解释”。委员会就此重申，禁止酷刑是绝对的，不可克减的，不允许任何可能的辩护理由。委员会还认为“合法权限、理由或解释”这种辩护依据的范围宽于《公约》第 1(1)条，因而会导致违背《公约》的不当解读(第 1 条和第 4 条)。
10. Notwithstanding the position of Hong Kong, China that the word “includes” in section 2 (1) of the Crimes (Torture) Ordinance makes it clear that a person not holding an office described in the schedule may still be a “public official”, the Committee remains concerned that the absence of a more inclusive definition of the term “public official” could, in practice, prevent the prosecution of other officials not explicitly mentioned in such schedule. Furthermore, the Committee notes with concern that Hong Kong, China has taken no action to abolish the defence of “lawful authority, justification or excuse” of the illicit conduct under the law of Hong Kong, China or the law of the place where it is inflicted, contained in section 3 (4) of the same Ordinance. In that respect, the Committee reiterates that the prohibition against torture is absolute and non-derogable and does not authorize any possible defence. It also considers that the defence of “lawful authority, justification or excuse” is broader in scope than the second sentence of article 1 (1) of the Convention, and could thus lead to abusive interpretations contrary to the Convention (arts. 1 and 4).