Duty to prevent 12. States have an obligation to prevent torture according to Article 2(1) of UNCAT. They should take ‘effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures’ to prevent acts of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in any territory under its jurisdiction.295 This will include, according to the UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture: ‘ensuring that a wide variety of procedural safeguards for those deprived of their liberty are recognized and realized in practice. These will relate to all phases of detention, from initial apprehension to final release from custody. Since the purpose of such safeguards is to reduce the likelihood or rise of torture or illtreatment occurring, they are of relevance irrespective of whether there is any evidence of torture or ill-treatment actually taking place’.296 13. This is an obligation separate from the obligation to prohibit. It is a ‘wide ranging’, proactive duty and one which is continually evolving.297 It encompasses more ‘than compliance with legal commitments’ and includes ‘as many as possible of those things which in a given situation can contribute towards the lessening of the likelihood or risk of torture or ill-treatment occurring’.298 14. The duty to prevent therefore includes identifying and reducing the risks and causes of torture and other forms of ill treatment before they occur, as well as ensuring torture and ill treatment does not re-occur if it has already happened.299 15. Risk factors include: 300      the political and social environment and context in the State, including the respect for human rights and the rule of law; the extent of legal protection in place and its implementation, including the procedural safeguards in place for those deprived of their liberty; how the criminal justice system operates; the broader regulatory and institutional environment; the vulnerability of the individual, particularly those held in detention.301 16. Where there were structural problems in Bulgarian law which resulted in prisoners being unable to seek appropriate redress for the conditions in which 295 Articles 2(1) and 16 UNCAT. ‘The Approach of the Subcommittee to the Concept of Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment under the Optional Protocol’, UN Doc CAT/OP/ 12/6, para 5(c). 297 CAT, General Comment No.2, CAT/C/GC/2/CRP.1/Rev.4 (2007), para 4. 298 ‘The Approach of the Subcommittee to the Concept of Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment under the Optional Protocol’, UN Doc CAT/OP/ 12/6, para 3. 299 APT, Asia-Pacific Forum, OHCHR, Preventing Torture. An Operational Guide for National Human Rights Institutions, 2010, p.10. 300 Ibid. 301 Inter-American Court, Case of the “Juvenile Re-education Institute”, 2 September 2004, Series C. No.112. 296 66