You don't get to vote on what Geneva means. And your opinion is immediatly checkable vs. the various documents (Geneva and other UN) where definitions for torture that we argued for, got our way on, and officially adopted.

It is stated clearly in words that a moderately-educated person can understand. There is no need to quibble about what you think it means. [I seem to be repeating myself, sorry. I just hate having to repeat myself, and I've done this a couple of times on this board now.]

"...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a male or female 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...

Also:

"In accordance with the optional UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (1955), "corporal punishment, punishment by placing in a dark cell, and all cruel, inhuman or degrading punishments shall be completely prohibited as punishments for disciplinary offences."[27] The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, (16 December 1966), explicitly prohibits torture and "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" by signatories."