parties accused of committing torture.29 The Commission cited article 8 to underscore the importance of an “impartial examination” of each case.30 for the right to an effective remedy before a national authority, as imposing an obligation to investigate claims of torture thoroughly. Considering the “fundamental importance of the prohibition of torture” and the vulnerability of torture victims, the Court held that “Article 13 imposes, without prejudice to any other remedy available under the domestic system, an obligation on States to carry out a thorough and effective investigation of incidents of torture”.35 31. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has addressed the necessity of investigating claims of violations of the American Convention on Human Rights. In its decision in the Velásquez Rodríguez case, judgement of 29 July 1988, the Court stated that: The State is obligated to investigate every situation involving a violation of the rights protected by the Convention. If the State apparatus acts in such a way that the violation goes unpunished and the victim’s full enjoyment of such rights is not restored as soon as possible, the State has failed to comply with its duty to ensure the free and full exercise of those rights to the persons within its jurisdiction. 36. According to the Court’s interpretation, the notion of an “effective remedy” in article 13 entails a thorough investigation of every “arguable claim” of torture. The Court noted that although the Convention has no express provision, such as article 12 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, “such a requirement is implicit in the notion of an ‘effective remedy’ under Article 13”.36 The Court then found that the State had violated article 13 by failing to investigate the applicant’s allegation of torture.37 32. Article 5 of the Convention provides for the right to be free from torture. Although the case dealt specifically with the issue of disappearance, one of the rights referred to by the Court as guaranteed by the American Convention on Human Rights is the right not to be subjected to torture or other forms of ill-treatment. 2. 37. In a judgement of 28 October 1998 in the case of Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria (90/1997/874/1086), the Court went even further in recognizing an obligation for the State to investigate allegations of torture not only under article 13 but also under article 3. In this case, a young Romany arrested by the police showed medical evidence of beatings, but it was impossible to assess, on the basis of available evidence, whether these injuries were caused by his father or by the police. The Court recognized that “the degree of bruising found by the doctor who examined Mr. Assenov . ..indicates that the latter’s injuries, whether caused by his father or by the police, were sufficiently serious to amount to ill-treatment within the scope of Article 3”.38 Contrary to the Commission that held that there was no violation of article 3, the Court did not stop there. It went on and considered that the facts raised “a reasonable suspicion that these injuries may have been caused by the police”.39 Hence the Court held that: The European Court of Human Rights 33. On 4 November 1950, the Council of Europe adopted the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which entered into force on 3 September 1953.31 Article 3 of the European Convention states that “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. The European Convention established control mechanisms consisting of the European Court and the European Commission of Human Rights. Since the reform that entered into force on 1 November 1998, a new permanent Court has replaced the former Court and Commission. The right of individual applications is now mandatory, and all victims have direct access to the Court. The Court has had the occasion to consider the necessity of investigating allegations of torture as a way of ensuring the rights guaranteed by article 3. 34. The first judgement on this issue was the decision in the Aksoy v. Turkey case (100/1995/606/694), delivered on 18 December 1996.32 In that case, the Court considered that: [I]n these circumstances, where an individual raises an arguable claim that he has been seriously ill-treated by the police or other such agents of the State unlawfully and in breach of Article 3, 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. This investi-gation... should be capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible. If this were not the case, the general legal prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment, despite its fundamental importance..., would 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.40 [w]here an individual is taken into police custody in good health but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation as to the causing of the injury, failing which a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention.33 35. The Court went on to hold that the injuries inflicted on the applicant resulted from torture and that article 3 had been violated.34 Furthermore, the Court interpreted article 13 of the Convention, which provides 38. For the first time, the Court concluded that a violation of article 3 had occurred, not from ill-treatment per se but from a failure to carry out effective official investigation on the allegation of ill-treatment. In addi- 29 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Mexico, 1998, para. 323. 30 Ibid., para. 324. 31 United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 213, p. 222. 32 See Additional Protocols Nos. 3, 5 and 8, which entered into force on 21 September 1970, 20 December 1971 and 1 January 1990, European Treaty Series Nos. 45, 46 and 118, respectively. 33 See European Court of Human Rights, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996–VI, para. 61. 34 Ibid., para. 64. 35 Ibid., para. 98. Ibid. 37 Ibid., para. 100. 38 Ibid., Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998–VIII, para. 95. 39 Ibid., para. 101. 40 Ibid., para. 102. 36 8