States to take action were laid down by the European Court of Human Rights (The Court), based on the principle that the Convention does not just oblige the higher authorities of the Contracting States themselves to respect the rights and freedoms it embodies. A consequence of that principle is that the State, in order to secure those rights and freedoms, must prevent or remedy any breach at subordinate levels. The Court emphasised that1: “… the Convention does not merely oblige the higher authorities of the Contracting States themselves to respect the rights and freedoms it embodies; it also has the consequence that, in order to secure the enjoyment of those rights and freedoms, those authorities must prevent or remedy any breach at subordinate levels. The higher authorities of the State are under a duty to require their subordinates to comply with the Convention and cannot shelter behind their inability to ensure that it is respected.” Obligations of the State with regard to Articles 2 and 3, and police oversight, can be seen as either substantive or procedural. Substantive obligations include, but are not limited to, preventative measures, such as requiring States to set out rules or standards governing police actions, or properly equipping places of detention. On the other hand, procedural obligations include remedial action, such as the right of complainants to an effective investigation of their allegations. It is these procedural obligations that, in the main, have driven the development of police oversight mechanisms to effectively investigate complaints or, in some cases, to proactively carry out monitoring of police actions. In many oversight models the procedural obligations are measured against standards which have been drawn from the substantive obligations embodied in Articles 2 and 3. The requirements for States to carry out effective investigations have been clearly set out in several judgements of the Court2 over a number of years. Additionally, obligations to investigate instances of torture are detailed in Articles 12 and 13 of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT). Article 12 Each State Party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed in any territory under its jurisdiction. 1 Assanidzé v Georgia (71503/01) - judgment of 8 April 2004 Assenov and others v Bulgaria (90/1997/874/1086) – judgement of 28 October 1998 Labita v Italy (26772/95) – judgement of 6 April 2000 2 4