Part I: Recognition and usage 30 To foresee, see and remedy: state responsibilities for investigating torture By Victor Madrigal-Borloz Principal Human Rights Specialist, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Upon allegations of torture, states have an obligation to initiate a prompt and impartial investigation. This rule, enshrined in the UN Convention against Torture, is a general principle of international law binding at all times. To comply with this duty, states must put in place conditions conducive to efficient and effective investigations, punishing those responsible and providing redress to victims. These conditions depend on a framework wherein a state considers torture improper by all legal standards, discourages its use by all means available and establishes the structure through which allegations of torture will be effectively documented: • Legislative action must provide a legal frame of reference for identifying, prosecuting and curtailing the practice of torture. Compliance with this obligation imposes on states the duty to coherently implement international obligations by adopting domestic legislation that defines the crime of torture. Further, legislative action must help eliminate obstacles to prosecution, such as blanket amnesty, statutes of limitation or the establishment of exclusions of responsibility. Time after time, prosecutors and judges dealing with cases of torture face hindrances due to the absence of detainee records in places of custody and detailed medical examinations documenting the physical state of detainees who are placed under the custody of the state. Hence, regulations must include the creation and maintenance of records to ensure that detainees are examined while in the custody of any state authority, whether in police offices, military facilities or penitentiary centres, be it in remand, under sentence or upon entry into such a centre.