This existence of a positive duty to investigate ill-treatment has been clearly set out by the Court, which “recalls that Article 3 of the Convention creates a positive obligation to investigate effectively allegations of ill-treatment (Assenov and Others . . . §§ 101-106).”18 The Court has set out its reasoning as follows: “The Court recalls that where an individual makes a credible assertion that he has suffered treatment infringing Article 3 at the hands of the police or other similar agents of the State, that provision, read in conjunction with the State’s general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to “secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in ... [the] Convention”, requires by implication that there should be an effective official investigation. … Otherwise, the general legal prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment would, despite its fundamental importance, be ineffective in practice and it would be possible in some cases for agents of the State to abuse the rights of those within their control with virtual impunity (see, among other authorities, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV).”19 Similarly, the CPT has indicated that: “The credibility of the prohibition of torture and other forms of ill-treatment is undermined each time officials responsible for such offences are not held to account for their actions. If the emergence of information indicative of illtreatment is not followed by a prompt and effective response, those minded to ill-treat persons deprived of their liberty will quickly come to believe – and with very good reason – that they can do so with impunity.”20 The absolute character of the obligation to investigate serious human rights violations has been amplified by the Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe of 30 March 2011.21 The obligations to prevent torture and other forms of ill-treatment are most comprehensively set out in UNCAT. In addition to the duty to investigate under Article 12, it refers to “legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures” under Article 2 and the need for particular provisions on: ff preventing the expulsion, return or extradition of a person to a country when there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be tortured (Article 3); ff the criminalisation of acts of torture (Article 4); 18. Afanasyev v. Russia, Judgment of 5 April 2005, application no. 38722/02, para. 69. 19. Bekos and Koutropoulos v. Greece, Judgment of 13December 2005, application no. 15250/02, para. 53. 20. 14th General Report on the CPT’s activities, CPT/Inf (2004) 28, para. 25. 21. Para. 1 of Chapter ‘V. The duty to investigate’ of the Guidelines in issue. Effective investigation of ill-treatment – Guidelines ► Page 20