and States have to bear responsibility for these acts under specific circumstances. In assessing whether States took adequate steps in order to fulfil their obligation to protect individuals against human rights violations by other individuals, the due diligence principle has to be applied. The Committee against Torture points out that States bear responsibility when acts of torture or ill-treatment are being committed by private individuals, if State authorities know or have reasonable grounds to believe that these acts are being committed. If State officials fail to exercise due diligence to prevent and investigate these acts, prosecute and punish private actors, the respective States may be held responsible under UNCAT and be seen as consenting to or acquiescing in these acts of torture or ill-treatment. The State’s inaction would lead to a de facto permission of these acts.57 Also the ECtHR ruled that States not only have an obligation to refrain from committing any act of torture or other forms of ill-treatment, but also to protect persons under its jurisdiction from being subject to torture or other forms of ill-treatment by non-State actors. States also have the obligation to investigate any act of torture or other forms of ill-treatment committed by private persons.58 In Opuz v Turkey the Court found a violation of the prohibition of torture or other forms of ill-treatment because the State failed to take protective measures in the form of effective deterrence against serious breaches of the applicant’s personal integrity by her ex-husband.59 The applicant had been threatened and assaulted for several years by her then husband; the applicant’s mother was killed by him. If all other requirements of the definition of torture in a case of trafficking in human beings are also fulfilled, the responsibility for these acts of torture committed by private persons can be attributed to the State. The State failed to act with due diligence to protect victims from being trafficked by private actors.60 Also in cases in which trafficking in human beings would be assessed as CIDT, States can be held accountable when they fail to act and implement measures CAT General Comment No. 2: Implementation of article 2 by States parties Tackling impunity for Non-State Actors – How has the Committee against Torture interpreted the ‘acquiescence of a public official’ requirement in the Convention’s definition of torture and how does this compare with the concept of ‘due diligence’ developed by other regional mechanisms? against violence by private parties that the States are aware of or could know about. Forms of well-known and wide spread violence by private parties are for example corporal punishment in the family, domestic violence against women and children and trafficking in women and children.61 To conclude, in general there is a certain tendency to attribute State responsibility for acts of torture committed by private persons. This tendency is also reflected in some national laws on torture and other forms of ill-treatment as well as sporadically in court cases which do not require the involvement of a State official. Examples of legislation on torture and other forms of ill-treatment which include acts of private persons Armenia: CC 119, Torture: Torture is wilfully causing strong pain or bodily or mental sufferance to a person, if this did not cause consequences envisaged in Articles 112 [Infliction of wilful heavy damage to health] and 113 [Infliction of wilful medium-gravity damage to health], is punished with imprisonment for the term up to 3 years. Torture committed by a group of persons or by an organized group is punished with imprisonment of 3 to 7 years. Estonia: CC 122, Torture: Continuous physical abuse or abuse which causes great pain is punishable by a pecuniary punishment or up to 5 years’ imprisonment. France: CC 222-1, Torture and acts of barbarity: The subjection of a person to torture or to acts of barbarity is punished by fifteen years’ criminal imprisonment. The act committed by a person holding public authority and in the exercise of this function is punished with imprisonment of 20 years. Montenegro: CC 167, Maltreatment and torture: Anyone who causes great suffering of others with the aim to obtain an information or confession from them or a third party, or to intimidate them or a third party, or to exert pressure on them, or who does it from some other motives grounded on any form of discrimination, shall be sentenced to imprisonment not exceeding three years. The act committed by a person acting in an official capacity during performance of his/her duties is punished with one to five years of imprisonment. Case of Opuz v Turkey Application no. 33401/02 Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, The United Nations Convention against Torture: A Commentary 21