To foresee, see and remedy: state responsibilities for investigating torture is a particularly violent notion, since it is precisely the action of the judiciary that is supposed to prosecute and punish torture. Any evidence obtained under torture must be deemed as contaminated; any judicial process that relies on evidence obtained through torture must be revised, and declared null and void if appropriate. An efficient investigation discharges some of the state’s responsibilities, but its main purpose and outcome is to ensure redress for the violation which the state incurred, and nonrepetition. The state obligation to provide redress for human rights violations is a principle of law and entails the duty to redress the consequences of the violation, ideally through restitutio in integrum. In most cases of human rights violations (and arguably in all torture cases), in which such integral restitution is not possible, other measures must come into play to ensure full reparation. Redress for torture acts must address physical, psychological and material damage. Redress measures include: • Cessation, aimed at ensuring the end not only of the acts of torture but – just as essentially – of the denial of justice that is oftentimes created by the absence of an impartial and prompt investigation. Cessation measures also include measures of non-repetition (particularly measures conducive to install the legal, regulatory and practical framework necessary to ensure that the violation will not re-occur). • Restoration, aimed at re-establishing the situation that existed prior to the violation. One example of particular relevance is the revision of judicial processes in which evidence obtained through torture was utilised; others are measures of legal, professional or medical rehabilitation. • Satisfaction, which includes measures of determination and acknowledgement of responsibility, acts of constriction, publicity of the findings on an investigation on torture, or measures of commemoration and remembrance. 33