A/HRC/25/60 2. The prohibition against torture and the obligation to prevent and discourage torture and other ill-treatment 40. The prohibition against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment enjoys the enhanced status of a jus cogens or peremptory norm of general international law and requires States not merely to refrain from authorizing or conniving at torture or other ill-treatment but also to suppress, prevent and discourage such practices. States have not only the obligation to “respect”, but to “ensure respect” for the absolute prohibition against torture. In this context, the Human Rights Committee has authoritatively interpreted Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and found that it is not sufficient for the implementation of article 7 to prohibit such treatment or punishment or to make it a crime. States shall take measures to prevent and punish acts of torture or other ill-treatment in any territory under their jurisdiction.31 41. Articles 2, paragraph 1 and 16, paragraph 1, of the Convention, as well as article 2 ICCPR oblige each State to take actions that will reinforce the prohibition against torture and other ill-treatment in its jurisdiction through legislative, administrative, judicial, or other actions that must, in the end, be effective in preventing it. States are obligated to adopt effective measures to prevent public authorities and other persons acting in an official capacity from directly committing, instigating, inciting, encouraging, acquiescing in or otherwise participating or being complicit in acts of torture. The Committee against Torture has authoritatively held that the obligation to prevent torture and other ill-treatment under article 16, paragraph 1 of the Convention are indivisible, interdependent and interrelated. In addition, conditions that give rise to ill-treatment frequently facilitate torture and therefore the measures to prevent torture must be applied to prevent ill-treatment.32 42. Although articles 2, paragraph 1 and 16, paragraph 1 of the Convention, as well as article 2 ICCPR contain a jurisdictional limitation, it is clear that the obligation to take measures to prevent acts of torture or other ill-treatment includes actions the State takes in its own jurisdiction to prevent torture or other ill-treatment in another jurisdiction. In Soering v United Kingdom the European Court for Human Rights found that the extraditing State would be responsible for the breach, even where such treatment is subsequently beyond its control.33 The prohibition against acts of torture and other ill-treatment requires States to abstain from acting within their territory and spheres of control in a manner that exposes individuals outside of their territory and control to a real risk of such acts. The fact that torture or other ill-treatment would occur outside the territory of the State in question and the direct control of the State does not relieve the State from responsibility for its own actions vis-à-vis the incident.34 States have an international legal obligation to safeguard the rights of all individuals under their jurisdiction, which implies that they have a duty to ensure that foreign agencies do not engage in activities that violate human rights, including the prohibition against torture or other ill-treatment, on their territory as well as to refrain from participating in any such activities.35 The International Court of Justice, in its advisory opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, recognised that the jurisdiction of States is primarily territorial, but concluded that the ICCPR extends to “acts done by a State in the exercise of its jurisdiction outside of its own territory.36 Moreover, the jus cogens nature of the prohibition against 31 32 33 34 35 36 Human Rights Committee General comment No. 20 (1992), op. cit., para. 8 Committee against Torture, General comment No.2 (CAT/C/GC/2), paras. 3 and 17 Soering v United Kingdom, (1989) 11 EHRR 439, para 88 E/CN.4/2002/137, para. 14; M. Pollard, op. cit., at 370 A/HRC/14/46, Practice 35, para. 50 Advisory opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2004, para. 111 11