A/68/295 beings. As a widely recognized set of rules addressing the administration of penal institutions, the Rules should explicitly condemn torture and ill-treatment, including participation, complicity, incitement and attempts, and certain conduct that amounts to ill-treatment, whether committed by public officials, by other persons acting on behalf of the State or by private persons (Convention against Torture, art. 4). The Rules should also declare unambiguously that no exceptional circumstances whatsoever may be relied upon to justify acts of torture and other ill-treatment by public officials, that offenders will not be tolerated and that offenders will be subject to prosecution. Naming and defining this crime will promote the aim of the Convention against Torture, inter alia, by alerting everyone to the special gravity of the crime of torture (see Committee against Torture general comment No. 2, paras. 5 and 11). 34. Furthermore, in order to ensure that the absolute prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment is enforced as an effective means of prevention, the proposed preamble and subsequent procedural rule should declare unambiguously that the State’s obligation to prevent torture also applies to all persons who act, de jure or de facto, in the name of, in conjunction with or at the behest of the State party (Committee against Torture general comment No. 2, para. 7). The Committee against Torture has stated the following: … an order of a superior or public authority can never be invoked as a justification of torture. … At the same time, those exercising superior authority … cannot avoid accountability or escape criminal responsibility for torture or other ill-treatment committed by subordinates where they knew or should have known that such impermissible conduct was occurring, or was likely to occur, and they failed to take reasonable and necessary preventive measures (general comment No. 2, para. 26). Respect for prisoners’ inherent dignity and value as human beings 35. The principle of humane treatment of persons deprived of liberty constitutes the starting point for any consideration of prison conditions and the design of prison regimes. It complements and overlaps the principle on the prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment by requiring States (and consequently the prison authorities) to take positive measures to ensure minimum guarantees of humane treatment for persons in their custodial care (see Human Rights Committee general comment No. 21, para. 3). Treating all persons deprived of their liberty with humanity and with respect for their dignity is a fundamental and universally applicable rule, the application of which, at a minimum, cannot be dependent on the material resources available in the State party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (para. 4). In this regard, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has consistently affirmed that States cannot invoke economic hardship to justify imprisonment conditions that do not comply with the minimum international standards and respect the inherent dignity of the human being. 2 36. In the light of this interpretation, the Rules should incorporate a provision urging authorities to adopt specific measures aimed at resolving the structural shortcomings of places of deprivation of liberty and earmark the resources necessary to cover basic needs and work and educational programmes. Furthermore, the Rules should set out concrete measures to be taken to ensure minimum __________________ 2 8/23 See, for example, Vélez Loor v. Panama, Series C, No. 218, para. 198. 13-42285