Notes Greuges in some localities in Spain” and Rachel Neild, Confronting a Culture of Impunity, supra, p.223. 187. For further information, see Victims and Access to Justice, A Primer, available at http://www.irct.org/Default.aspx?ID=2678 188. In practice, to successfully pursue civil or administrative proceedings, torture victims require a ruling by a judge in criminal proceedings as evidence that they have suffered torture. 189. http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/7/b/ torture/torquest.htm. 190. See A/RES/57/199. 69 Add.2 198. This principle does not apply for systematic or gross violations of human rights. For more information see Reparation – A Sourcebook For Victims Of Torture And Other Violations Of Human Rights And International Humanitarian Law, REDRESS, March 2003, available at http://www.redress.org/ publications/SourceBook.pdf (REDRESS’ Sourcebook on Reparation). 199. Ibid. 200. Assenov & Others v. Bulgaria, supra. 201. Veznedaroglu v. Turkey (2001) 33 E.H.R.R. 59 ECHR, paras. 32 et seq. 191. Under Article 20 of the United Nations Convention against Torture there is also an inquiry procedure that allows the Committee against Torture to look into allegations of “systematic practice” of torture in a State Party to the Convention, with a possibility of visiting the country, unless that State Party has formally declared that it does not recognise the Committee’s competence to do so. However this procedure is not preventative but “reactive”, since the Committee can only visit the county after allegations of systematic torture have been made. 202. See Boyle and Rice v. United Kingdom (1988) 10 E.H.R.R 425 ECHR: “The Court does not think that it should give an abstract definition of the notion of arguability. Rather it must be determined, in the light of the particular facts and the nature of the legal issue or issues raised[...]” See also, McCallum v. United Kingdom (1991) 13 E.H.R.R. 597. 192. See http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/ cat/opcat/index.htm. 204. Toteva v. Bulgaria, supra, para. 62; Tanrikulu v. Turkey (2000) 30 E.H.R.R. 950 ECHR. See also the negative conclusion as to arguability in Kurt v. Turkey (1999) 27 E.H.R.R. 373 ECHR: “It is to be observed in this regard that the applicant’s case rests entirely on presumptions deduced from the circumstances of her son’s initial detention bolstered by more general analyses of an alleged officially tolerated practice of disappearances and associated ill-treatment and extra-judicial killing of detainees in the respondent State. The Court for its part considers that these arguments are not in themselves sufficient to compensate for the absence of more persuasive indications that her son did in fact meet his death in custody.” (para 108) (the Court found violations of Article 13 and Article 3 as regards the complainant’s suffering for lack of information as to her son’s whereabouts and the state’s disregard of her complaint but held there was insufficient information to conclude that a violation of Article 3 had occurred as regards her son). 193. For more information on the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Prisons and Conditions of Detention in Africa and the Special Rapporteur on Extra-Judicial Executions in Africa, see Section 5.3 in Reporting Killings as Human Rights Violations Handbook by Kate Thompson and Camille Giffard, Human Rights Centre, Essex University, UK. 194. The Torture Reporting Handbook by Camille Giffard, Human Rights Centre, Essex University, UK, 2000. 195. See Arts 75 and 79 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 2187 U.N.T.S. 90 196. See REDRESS, Bringing the International Prohibition of Torture Home: National Implementation Guide for the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, January 2006, pp.94 et seq. 197. See 4th Periodic Report to the Committee Against Torture, 27/05/2005 CAT/C/61/ 203. Veznedaroglu v. Turkey, supra, paras.34 et seq. Assenov & Others v. Bulgaria, supra, para 101. See also Toteva v. Bulgaria, Application no. 42027/98, Judgment of 19 May 2004, para.61.