chical or institutional links, but also practical independence.320 More recently, the Court explicitly expanded the duty to investigate beyond allegations of ill-treatment perpetrated by agents of the State; it is now clear that the positive obligation also extends to ill-treatment by private actors.321 The European Regional System 2 2.2.3 Duty to enact and enforce legislation While, unlike the UNCAT, the ECHR contains no explicit duty to criminalise torture, such a duty arises from the implicit duties to protect individuals from ill-treatment by other private individuals and to investigate cases where illtreatment may have occurred. Thus, in M.C. v Bulgaria, the Court considered that “States have a positive obligation inherent in Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention to enact criminal-law provisions effectively punishing rape and to apply them in practice through effective investigation and prosecution.”322 Furthermore, this duty is especially strict with regard to vulnerable groups. In A v UK, the Court held that “Children and other vulnerable individuals, in particular, are entitled to State protection, in the form of effective deterrence, against… serious breaches of personal integrity.”323 As discussed above, investigations must be capable of leading to identification and punishment of offenders. However, under the European Convention, there may be no punishment without law. Article 7 of the ECHR provides: “1. No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed. 2. This article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations.” Torture should fall within the exception contemplated by the second paragraph of this Article, though this may not yet be the case for all forms of inhuno. 77617/01, judgement of 26 January 2006. Kelly and Others v UK, no. 30054/96, ECHR 2001-III, judgement of 4 May 2001, §114. 321 M.C. v Bulgaria, op. cit., §151; Members of the Gldani Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses v Georgia, op. cit., §97; Šečić v Croatia, no. 40116/02, judgement of 31 May 2007. 322 M.C. v Bulgaria, op. cit., §153. 323 A v UK (1998), op. cit., §22. See also X and Y v the Netherlands, no. 8978/80, judgement of 26 March 1985, §§21 27; Stubbings and Others v UK, nos. 22083/93 and 22095/93, Rep. 1996-IV, judgement of 22 October 1996, §§62 64; M.C. v Bulgaria, op. cit., §150. 320 68