The European Regional System 2 able chastisement”, and therefore not a criminal offence. The Court held that “the obligations on High Contracting Parties under Article 1 of the Convention to secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention, taken together with Article 3, requires States to take measures designed to ensure that individuals within their jurisdiction are not subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including such ill-treatment administered by private individuals.”298 In this case, the State’s responsibility was engaged through its failure to provide adequate protection to the applicant against ill-treatment because, despite the fact that the child had been “subjected to treatment of sufficient severity to fall within Article 3”, the jury had acquitted the stepfather who had administered the treatment.299 While this is a significant decision, it should not be interpreted too widely. A State will not be responsible for all acts of ill-treatment committed in the private sphere; State responsibility still has to be engaged in some way. The necessity for a link to the State was confirmed in Z and Others v UK.300 This case involved the extreme neglect and ill-treatment of four children by their parents. The family’s situation had been brought to the attention of the relevant health officials and social services for many years, and the children’s poor living conditions and state of health had been reported to the police. Despite their appalling living conditions, the children were not given adequate protection and were taken into care only five years after the ill-treatment had been brought to the attention of the local authority. The Court recalled its finding in A v UK that States have a duty to take measures to ensure that individuals are not subjected to ill-treatment by private actors. It specified that “these measures should provide adequate protection, in particular, of children and other vulnerable groups and include reasonable steps to prevent ill-treatment of which the authorities had or ought to have had knowledge.”301 Accordingly, as the local authorities had knowledge of the ill-treatment but had failed to take reasonable steps to prevent it from continuing, the Court found a violation of Article 3. Ibid. §22. See also H.L.R. v France, no. 24573/94, Rep. 1997-III, judgement of 29 April 1997. Ibid. §24. See also Z and Others v UK, no. 29392/95, ECHR 2001-V, judgement of 10 May 2001, §73. 300 Z and Others v UK (2001), op. cit., §73. See also E and Others v UK, no. 33218/96, judgement of 26 November 2002. 301 Z and Others v UK (2001), op. cit., §73. See also Osman v UK, Rep. 1998-VIII, judgement of 28 October 1998, §116; Mubilanzila Mayeka and Kaniki Mitunga v Belgium, no. 13178/03, ECHR 2006-XI, judgement of 12 October 2006, §53; Members of the Gldani Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses v Georgia, no. 71156/01, judgement of 3 May 2007, §96. 298 299 64