ill-treatment, where it is considered as correct and professionally rewarding to belong to a team which abstains from such acts.” “42. Finally, no one must be left in any doubt concerning the commitment of the State authorities to combating impunity. This will underpin the action being taken at all other levels. When necessary, those authorities should not hesitate to deliver, through a formal statement at the highest political level, the clear message that there must be “zero tolerance” of torture and other forms of ill-treatment.” The Court has also referred in its judgments to certain elements of the preventive component of the prohibition. Some of these are viewed as part of the requirement for effective domestic remedies, i.e. obligations inferred from Articles 3 and 13 of the ECHR.23 Other standards have been endorsed by the Court via other Convention rights that are seen as interrelated with the prevention of ill-treatment, including: ff the banning of incommunicado deprivation of liberty; ff the requirement of proper recording of detention; 24 and ff the proscription of the use of evidence obtained in violation of Article 3.25 1.2.2 The obligation to investigate demands a coherent system of measures capable of ensuring an adequate response to credible accounts of torture and other forms of ill-treatment. It requires that states maintain mechanisms and procedures through which investigations can be initiated and that they adequately punish the perpetrators of ill-treatment. 1.2.3 State authorities must discharge the investigative duties in a manner consistent with their obligation to combat impunity for ill-treatment and other serious human rights violations, which arises where those responsible are not brought to account. 1.2.4 States are to combat impunity, which arises where those responsible are not brought to account, as a matter of justice for the victims, as a deterrent with respect to future human rights violations and in order to uphold the rule of law and public trust in the justice system. 23. Such as the requirement to pay compensation - see Balogh v. Hungary, Judgment of 20 July 2004, application no. 47940/99, para. 62. 24. Menesheva v. Russia, Judgment of 9 March 2006, application no. 59261/00, para. 87. 25. Harutyunyan v. Armenia, Judgment of 28 June 2007, application no. 36549/03, paras. 63-66. Effective investigation of ill-treatment – Guidelines ► Page 22