CAT/C/46/2 the Convention extends this obligation, providing that, “Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of punishment which do not amount to torture…”. As explained by the Committee against Torture in its general comment No. 2, “article 2, paragraph 1, obliges each State party to take actions that will reinforce the prohibition against torture”.5 Whilst the obligation to prevent torture and ill-treatment buttresses the prohibition of torture, it also remains an obligation in its own right and a failure to take appropriate preventive measures which were within its power could engage the international responsibility of the State, should torture occur in circumstances where the State would not otherwise have been responsible. 104. Drawing attention to article 2 of the Convention, the International Court of Justice has observed that “the content of the duty to prevent varies from one instrument to another, according to the wording of the relevant provisions, and depending on the nature of the acts to be prevented”.6 The Committee has said that the duty to prevent is “wide-ranging”7 and has indicated that the content of that duty is not static since ‘the Committee’s understanding of and recommendations in respect of effective measures are in a process of continual evolution”8 and so are “not limited to those measures contained in the subsequent articles 3 to 16”.9 105. The Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture is of the view that, as these comments suggest, it is not possible to devise a comprehensive statement of what the obligation to prevent torture and ill-treatment entails in abstracto. It is of course both possible and important to determine the extent to which a State has complied with its formal legal commitments as set out in international instruments and which have a preventive impact but whilst this is necessary it will rarely be sufficient to fulfil the preventive obligation: it is as much the practice as it is the content of a State’s legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures which lies at the heart of the preventive endeavour. Moreover, there is more to the prevention of torture and ill-treatment than compliance with legal commitments. In this sense, the prevention of torture and ill-treatment embraces — or 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 is also paid to the whole range of other factors which bear upon the experience and treatment of persons deprived of their liberty and which by their very nature will be context specific. 106. It is for this reason that the Optional Protocol seeks to strengthen the protection of persons deprived of their liberty, not by setting out additional substantive preventive obligations but in contributing to the prevention of torture by establishing, at both the international and national levels, a preventive system of regular visits and the drawing up of reports and recommendations based thereon. The purpose of such reports and recommendations is not only to bring about compliance with international obligations and standards but to offer practical advice and suggestions as to how to reduce the likelihood or risk of torture or ill-treatment occurring and will be firmly based on, and informed by, the facts found and circumstances encountered during the visits undertaken. As a result, the Subcommittee is of the view that it is best able to contribute to prevention by expanding on 5 6 7 8 9 GE.11-40683 CAT/C/GC/2, para 2. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro), Merits, Judgment of 26 February 2007, para. 429. CAT/C/GC/2, para. 3. Ibid., para. 4. Ibid., para. 1. 21