7.2 Adequacy of punishment 7.2.1 Findings of serious ill-treatment should be classified in accordance with the specifically enacted legislation and lead to appropriate criminal, administrative, and disciplinary penalties provided by law and which are proportionate to the gravity of the ill-treatment involved. In order to deter state authorities from mistreating those in their control, there must be serious consequences for perpetrators. The international standards do not contain any formal scales of appropriate punishments. Until recently, the Strasbourg Court was also less prescriptive. However, the guidelines in question reflect the comparatively recent development in its case law in this regard. In its relevant deliberations the Court has completed a “loop” of interrelation between the substantial standards and procedural aspect of the prohibition of ill-treatment. It has emphasized that the obligation to combat impunity is an indispensable prerequisite of its prevention. In Valeriu and Nicolae Rosca v. Moldova the Strasbourg Court stressed that an appropriate punishment in terms of both adequacy of the sanction imposed and the specific classification of the wrongdoing as ill-treatment are indispensable for combating it. It is to be noted in this regard that the relevant section of the judgment is entitled “Preventive effect of the prohibition of ill-treatment”. With this the Court has spelled out that the existence of relevant substantial criminal law framework and its appropriate application constitute part of the obligation to prevent ill-treatment. 198 The judgment in issue includes the following paragraph: “Lastly, and equally importantly, the Court believes that the preventive effect of legislation passed specifically in order to address the phenomenon of torture can only be ensured if such legislation is applied whenever the circumstances so require. In the present case, the CPT found (see paragraph 24 of the 2001 CPT report, cited in paragraph 41 above) that the person examined on 14 June 2001 had been beaten on the soles of his feet (falaka), and noted that another person had also been ill-treated there at the same time. The Court already established that those two persons were the applicants (see paragraph 54 above). The Court recalls that beating a person’s soles, or falaka, is a practice which is always intentional and can only be regarded as torture (see Corsacov cited above, § 65, and Levinţa cited above, § 71). In such circumstances, the failure to initiate criminal proceedings under Article 101/1 of the Criminal Code (torture), without any explanation as to the choice of another type of offence (abuse of power), is 198. Valeriu and Nicolae Rosca v. Moldova, judgment of 20 October 2009, paras. 71-75. Effective investigation of ill-treatment – Guidelines ► Page 66