A/HRC/22/53 outlined below demonstrates that the explicit or implicit aim of inflicting punishment, or the objective of intimidation, often exist alongside ostensibly therapeutic aims. 2. The scope of State core obligations under the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment 23. The Committee against Torture interprets State obligations to prevent torture as indivisible, interrelated, and interdependent with the obligation to prevent cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment (ill-treatment) because “conditions that give rise to ill-treatment frequently facilitate torture”.6 It has established that “each State party should prohibit, prevent and redress torture and ill-treatment in all contexts of custody or control, for example, in prisons, hospitals, schools, institutions that engage in the care of children, the aged, the mentally ill or disabled, in military service, and other institutions as well as contexts where the failure of the State to intervene encourages and enhances the danger of privately inflicted harm”.7 24. Indeed, the State‟s obligation to prevent torture applies not only to public officials, such as law enforcement agents, but also to doctors, health-care professionals and social workers, including those working in private hospitals, other institutions and detention centres (A/63/175, para. 51). As underlined by the Committee against Torture, the prohibition of torture must be enforced in all types of institutions and States must exercise due diligence to prevent, investigate, prosecute and punish violations by non-State officials or private actors.8 25. In da Silva Pimentel v. Brazil, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women observed that “the State is directly responsible for the action of private institutions when it outsources its medical services” and “always maintains the duty to regulate and monitor private health-care institutions”.9 The Inter-American Court of Human Rights addressed State responsibility for actions of private actors in the context of healthcare delivery in Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil.10 26. Ensuring special protection of minority and marginalized groups and individuals is a critical component of the obligation to prevent torture and ill-treatment. Both the Committee against Torture and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights have confirmed that States have a heightened obligation to protect vulnerable and/or marginalized individuals from torture, as such individuals are generally more at risk of experiencing torture and ill-treatment.11 C. Interpretative and guiding principles 1. Legal capacity and informed consent 27. In all legal systems, capacity is a condition assigned to agents that exercise free will and choice and whose actions are attributed legal effects. Capacity is a rebuttable 6 7 8 9 10 11 6 General comment No. 2 (2007), para. 3. Ibid., para. 15. General comment No. 2, paras. 15, 17 and 18. See also Committee against Torture, communication No. 161/2000, Dzemajl et al. v. Serbia and Montenegro, para. 9.2; Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 20 (1992), para. 2. Communication No. 17/2008, para. 7.5. Inter-American Court of Human Rights. (Series C) No. 149 (2006), paras. 103, 150; see also Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, general recommendation No. 19 (1992), para. 9. Committee against Torture, general comment No. 2, para. 21; Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil, para. 103.