A/76/168 can operate to shield State authorities from a close review of institutio nal cultures, attitudes and/or practices, policies and laws which may have enabled or even encouraged or prescribed the violation. Relevant stakeholders observe that ensuring a systemic perspective to accountability is vital in contexts such as drug -related law enforcement, interrogation techniques, the policing of protests and the intersection between torture and corruption. Unfortunately, effective accountability at the level of State institutions and of the State’s Government more broadly is often underm ined or prevented by systematic denial, obstruction or diversion from institutional or systemic failings by focusing on the individual misconduct of so -called “bad apples”. 22 Such tendencies are widespread in spite of the prime importance of holding State agencies accountable with a view to identifying and addressing systemic and structural problems in order to ensure non-repetition. B. Individual accountability for torture and ill-treatment 24. Those who perpetrate or are otherwise involved (through consent, instigation or acquiescence) in the infliction of torture or ill-treatment are implicated in one of the most serious violations of human rights. Holding these individuals accountable is a fundamental component of State obligations derived from the absolute and non-derogable prohibition of torture and ill-treatment. Individual accountability for torture and ill-treatment requires that individuals involved in violations of the prohibition, whether through acts or omissions, take or be assigned respons ibility for their misconduct, face appropriate consequences and repair or contribute to repairing the harm caused for the benefit of victims, their next of kin and the wider community. While ensuring that individuals responsible for perpetrating or contrib uting to torture and ill-treatment are held to account, sanctioned and compelled to provide redress for the violation is an integral element of accountability for torture and ill -treatment, individual accountability is always complementary to State account ability, rather than being a substitute for State accountability or exhaustive of accountability for torture or ill-treatment. 25. Individual accountability for torture and ill-treatment is primarily sought by establishing criminal or civil liability, notably by means of a criminal investigation and prosecution or through relevant litigation. Prompt, independent, impartial and effective investigations, in accordance with the Istanbul Protocol, and legal accountability mechanisms not only ensure appropriate redress, but can also have a deterrent effect against the occurrence or repetition of violations. It is now firmly established in relevant jurisprudence that the duty of States to investigate credible allegations or suspected incidents of torture or ill-treatment requires them to pursue avenues of individual accountability that enable the identification and, where appropriate, the punishment of those responsible, 23 as well as the provision of reparations to the victim, which should encompass “compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage flowing from the breach”. 24 26. In practice, however, the overwhelming majority of perpetrators are never held to account and, of those who are, few receive sanctions commensurate with the gravity of their crimes. Widespread failure to hold perpetrators, whether State officials or non-State actors, accountable can create a prevailing sense that torture is largely tolerated or even desired rather than absolutely prohibited. The resulting climate of impunity in the widest sense sustains and proliferates practices of torture __________________ 22 23 24 21-09914 A/75/179. Assenov and others, para. 77. European Court of Human Rights, Aleksakhin v. Ukraine (application No. 31939/06), Judgment of 19 July 2012, para. 60. 9/23