A/HRC/25/60 ensure the rights under the prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment. A failure to do so by permitting or failing to take appropriate measures or to exercise due diligence to prevent, investigate or punish acts of torture gives rise to a violation. This also applies to the judiciary in its role as custodian of the legality of State action. The acceptance and use of information outside of formal proceedings that was likely obtained by torture or other illtreatment or the sharing of information that could lead to such acts constitutes a violation of the underlying general prohibition against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.42 3. State responsibility and complicity in acts of torture and other ill-treatment 48. A violation of the prohibition against acts of torture or other ill-treatment and the obligation to prevent can be committed by active participation and acts of complicity in such acts. Article 4, paragraph 1, of the Convention refers to the individual criminal liability of a person for complicity or participation in torture. The Committee against Torture considered complicity to include acts that amount to instigation, incitement, superior order and instruction, consent, acquiescence and concealment.43 It is clear that acquiescence as contained in article 1 of the Convention on the part of state officials is sufficient for the conduct of those officials to be attributed to the state and to lead to state responsibility for torture. Although not written explicitly, article 4, paragraph 1, of the Convention reflects an obligation on states themselves not to be complicit in torture, through the actions of their organs or persons whose acts are attributable to them.44 49. In addition, State responsibility also derives from existing customary rules as codified in the Draft Articles of the International Law Commission on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (Draft Articles). They confirm that no State should provide aid or assistance to another State in the commission of an internationally wrongful act45 and should not recognize as lawful a situation created by a “serious breach” of its obligations under peremptory norms of international law and to cooperate to bring the breach to an end.46 Therefore, if a State were to be torturing detainees, other States have a duty to cooperate to bring such a serious breach of the prohibition against torture to an end, and are required not to give any aid or assistance to its continuation.47 50. According to article 4, paragraph 1, of the Convention, interpreted in line with international criminal law jurisprudence, "complicity" contains three elements: knowledge that torture is taking place; a direct contribution by way of assistance; and that it has a substantial effect on the perpetration of the crime. Thus, individual responsibility for complicity in torture arises also in situations where State agents do not themselves directly inflict torture or other ill-treatment but direct or allow others to do so, or acquiesce in it. In addition, orders from superiors or other public authorities cannot be invoked as a justification or excuse.48 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 M. Pollard, op. cit., at 360 CAT/C/SR.105 A/HRC/13/42, para. 39-40; see also Sarah Fulton, Cooperating with the enemy of mankind: Can States simply turn a blind eye to torture?, IJHR, 16:5, 773, at 782 Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, adopted by the International Law Commission at its fifty-third session, in 2001, taken note of by the General Assembly in its resolution 56/83, Draft Articles 16-18 Ibid., Draft Articles 40-41 on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts A/67/396, para. 48; A/HRC/13/42, para. 42 See e.g. Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 20 (1992), op. cit.,para. 3 13