A/76/168 as far as torture is concerned, as having attained peremptory status ( jus cogens). It is a norm of law from which no derogation is permitted. This legal position reflects the moral as well as legal imperative of protecting all human beings from torture and ill treatment, without exception or discrimination of any kind and regardless of jurisdiction, territory or nationality. Compliance with the prohibition on torture and other ill-treatment is therefore a non-negotiable, universal obligation to which all States must be held. 10. Investigating and redressing non-compliance with the prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment are inextricably linked to the absolute and non-derogable character of the prohibition and the imperative of securing everyone’s right to be free from torture and ill-treatment. Evasion or obstruction of accountability for torture or ill treatment therefore entails the violation not only of the concrete legal obligations that the present report sets out, but also of the spirit and purpose of the en tire normative edifice derived from the prohibition of torture and ill -treatment. 11. Moreover, accountability for torture and ill-treatment is closely connected to the pursuit of justice and the rule of law. 6 Holding culpable actors to account is a fundamental element of the process of securing justice for survivors, as well as of vindicating the legal norm(s) violated and thereby more broadly upholding the rule of law. At the same time, a widespread lack of accountability tends to go hand in hand with systemic injustice, and is conducive to oppressive, exploitative and arbitrary rule. 12. Unfortunately, in spite of the significance of accountability for the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment itself and for key values of the international legal ord er across the world, the vast majority of those responsible for perpetrating, instigating or consenting or acquiescing to torture or ill-treatment are not being held to account. Many national legal systems still do not adequately guarantee or effectively implement accountability for torture and ill-treatment, and some even establish legal and practical obstacles to accountability. 7 Moreover, unduly narrow approaches to redressing torture and ill-treatment risk obscuring various facets of accountability and thereby restricting accountability’s reparative, preventive and transformative potential. A. State accountability for torture and ill-treatment 13. States are universally bound by the prohibition of torture and ill -treatment and must prevent, investigate, prosecute and redress any such act occurring within their territorial or personal jurisdiction. Torture and ill-treatment perpetrated, instigated or consented or acquiesced to by State agents or by individuals acting in an official capacity, including failure to act with due diligence to prevent such abuse, or to provide redress and reparation, conclusively amount to a violation of international law. On the international level, accountability for such violations is facilitated through a robust, but subsidiary, international and regional institutional framework. 8 Primarily, however, accountability should be ensured at the national level, including through measures to ensure redress and non-recurrence. 14. On the international level, an important role in ensuring accountability for torture and ill-treatment is fulfilled by treaty-based judicial and quasi-judicial bodies mandated to oversee the implementation of specific human rights instruments, and by __________________ 6 7 8 21-09914 Mark Bovens, “Analysing and assessing accountability: a conceptual framework”, European Law Journal, vol. 13, No. 4 (7 June 2007), p. 447. A/73/207, para. 24. Ibid., paras. 5–18. 5/23