managerial leadership. Some shortcomings are more important than others. If anything, statistical data from the European Court of Human Rights seems to suggest that the number of cases leading to adverse judgments against states is increasing. This is particularly so in relation to failures to investigate possible ill-treatment. The European Court of Human Rights has also interpreted Article 3 of the ECHR as imposing the obligation to ensure the provision of an effective legal framework that leads to the effective investigation of ill-treatment with a view to bringing those responsible to justice. The development of this “procedural aspect” of the guarantee against torture and ill-treatment is justified by the need to render the provision practical and effective: state officials will be less likely to resort to prohibited means if the consequences of doing so are considerable. Before discussing these expectations and standards, however, it is helpful to outline in greater detail the three principal strands of standard-setting at a European level: the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights when interpreting the ECHR; those arising from the work of the CPT; and the recommendations made by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. A final point worth noting is that other agencies are also now active in this field and playing an increasingly important role in the protection of prisoners. 1.2 The European system for the protection of persons deprived of their liberty 1.2.1 Legal obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights In Europe, the European Court of Human Rights is the ultimate protector of human right norms, but the European human rights system proceeds upon the basis that member States are expected to provide the first line of defence. In particular, the expectation is that domestic courts should reflect the ECHR case-law in their daily determinations. This suggests a constructive interplay between domestic legal systems and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. But the emphasis is clearly and firmly upon domestic implementation of human rights guarantees. Certainly, when domestic arrangements are found wanting, exercise of the right of individual application to the European Court of Human Rights may be necessary. However, when the European Court of Human Rights establishes a violation of a provision of the ECHR, the principle of subsidiarity again arises, for after it decides, the case remains very much open until the steps necessary to meet the concerns of the European Court of Human Rights have been taken by the domestic Combating ill-treatment in prison ► Page 10