Conditions of detention as ill-treatment What is important is that ill-treatment cannot only be inflicted by bodily injury or threats but also unintentionally, for example by poor conditions of detention. This has been confirmed by the long-established jurisprudence of the ECtHR as well as the UN Human Rights Committee.85 Conditions of detention are usually considered inhuman where there is an accumulation of factors such as such as overcrowding, a lack of medical treatment, unhygienic conditions, etc. that attain a minimum level of severity. The lack of resource is in any case irrelevant and cannot serve States as an excuse for inhuman detention conditions.86 When conditions of detention can be considered inhuman depends on all circumstances of the case. Practical guidance on how persons in detention should be treated can be found in the many soft law documents, notably the recently revised UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the so called Mandela Rules)87 as well as the European Prison Rules88 that are frequently used as guidance by the ECtHR and international human rights mechanisms when determining whether a state violates the prohibition of ill-treatment.89 Positive obligations to prevent ill-treatment The state has clear positive obligations and responsibilities under the prohibition of ill-treatment. It must provide adequate means and mechanisms to prevent ill-treatment in their national systems. This has been recognised by the ECtHR90 and is explicitly prescribed in Articles 2 and 16 CAT: “Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture [respectively ill-treatment] in any territory under its jurisdiction.”91 Moreover, Article 10 of the ICCPR contains a clear commitment to a rehabilitative justice system: “The penitentiary system shall comprise treatment of prisoners the essential aim of which shall be their reformation and social rehabilitation.” The UN Subcommittee for the Prevention of Torture has emphasised the broadness of the preventive obligation, that goes beyond the compliance with legal commitments but “should embrace 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. Such an approach requires not only that there be compliance with relevant international obligations and standards in both form and substance but that attention also be paid to the whole range of other factors relevant to the experience and treatment of persons deprived of their liberty and which by their very nature will be context specific.”92 This essentially means that in order to effectively implement the obligation to prevent ill-treatment one must look at the big picture how and when people are deprived of their liberty in a given context. 85 See for example Dougoz v Greece, Peers v. Greece, 2001; Kalashnikov v Russia, 2002; Human Rights Committee,1981. Buffov. Uruguay, Application number 33/1978). 86 See EctHR, Poltoratskiy v Ukraine, 2003; HRC, General Comment 21 to Article 10ß ICCPR, 1992. 87 United Nations,  Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, 30 August 1955,  available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b36e8.html [accessed 8 March 2017]. 88 Include reference 89 Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers,  Recommendation Rec(2006)2 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on the European Prison Rules, 11 January 2006,  Rec(2006)2,  available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/43f3134810.html. 90 Z and Others v. the UK (10 May 2001). The case deals with the abuse of four children in their homes. And the state´s responsibility to protect from ill-treatment committed by third-persons. 91 Article 2, para. 1 CAT. 92 SPT, CAT/OP/12/6, 30 December 2010. 28