78 GENDER PERSPECTIVES ON TORTURE: Law and Practice committed in the sphere of the State’s jurisdiction, the decision to open and conduct an investiga­ tion is not a discretionary power, but rather the duty to investigate constitutes a peremptory State obligation that arises from international law and cannot be disregarded or conditioned by domes­ tic legal decisions or provisions of any kind. Thus, when an act of violence is committed against a woman, it is particularly important that the authorities in charge of the investigation conduct it with determination and effectiveness, taking into account society’s duty to reject violence against women and the obligation of the State to eliminate it and give the victims confidence in the State institutions created to protect them. Consequently, States must ensure that their domestic laws do not impose differentiated conditions for the investigation of attacks on personal integrity of a sexual nature.”118 3. The obligation of investigation in the European Human Rights System It is important to note that the jurisprudence of the ECtHR regarding States’ obligation to inves­ tigate cases of torture has evolved over time. While the failure to perform a diligent investigation was previously considered a violation of Article 13 of the ECHR (right to an effective remedy), it is now considered a direct violation of procedural requirements under Article 3 (prohibition of torture).119 The ECtHR has divided the obligations under Article 3 into substantive and procedural requirements, and this evolution has been applied to cases of rape as torture.120 In recent jurisprudence, the ECtHR has ruled that a lack of investigation constitutes a violation of the prohibition of torture under procedural requirements of Article 3, which is not subject to derogation. In light of this conclusion, the Court no longer finds it necessary to apply Article 13 of the ECHR to such cases. The minimum standards of effectiveness set out by the ECtHR require investigations to be inde­ pendent, impartial, and subject to public review, and for competent authorities to act in diligent and speedy fashion.121 When a person alleges that he or she has been tortured by State agents, the notion of an “effective remedy” implies, “in addition to the payment of compensation where appropriate, a thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible, (...) and effective access for the complainant to the investigation procedure.”122 Regarding the obligation to investigate and punish forms of sexual violence and gender-based violence as torture, while this obligation is not expressly mentioned in the language of the ECHR, sexual violence is implicitly prohibited under Article 3. In the jurisprudence of the ECtHR, the rape of women detainees by State officials has been considered torture, and the Court has established a set of positive obligations for States to protect women against this form of violence, including the obligation to perform a thorough, speedy, and effective investigation. In Aydin v. Turkey, for instance, the ECtHR found that in cases of serious crimes such as rape, the obligation to investigate requires such investigations to be carried out in a speedy, careful, and effective manner capable of establishing the truth of the complainant’s allegations. In this case, the Ibid., para. 350. Women´s Link Worldwide y Clínica Jurídica por la Justicia Social de la Universidad de Valencia. Amicus Curiae ante la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. Caso 11.157. Espinoza v. Perú, para. 43. 2014 120 Ibid. at para. 44 121 ECtHR, Doran v. Ireland, Application No. 50389/99, Judgment of July 31, 2003, para. 57. 122 ECtHR, Aydın v. Turkey, op. cit., para. 103, and Selmouni v. France, Application No. 25803/94, Judgment of July 28, 1999, para. 79. 118 119