In its judgement, the Court, citing A v UK, Z and Others v UK,303 and other cases, reiterated the positive duty of States to provide protection against inhuman and degrading treatment, even where such treatment results from the acts of private individuals. Nevertheless, the Court distinguished between the positive duty imposed in such cases and the circumstances of the instant case. The Court noted that the State obligation arose out of the necessity for “the removal or mitigation of harm, for instance, preventing any ill-treatment by public bodies or private individuals or providing improved conditions or care.”304 However, in this instance, the positive duty claimed would “require the State to sanction actions intended to terminate life, an obligation that cannot be derived from Article 3.”305 Accordingly, the Court held that there is no positive obligation under Article 3 which would require the State to give an undertaking not to prosecute the applicant’s husband, or to provide a lawful opportunity for any other form of assisted suicide.306 The positive obligation to protect individuals from ill-treatment by private actors is therefore purely protective in nature, and extends only to the removal or mitigation of harm, and not the provision of reassurance. 2 The European Regional System Pretty v UK302 further illustrates the positive obligation on the State. The applicant in that case suffered from a degenerative fatal disease which caused her great pain and distress. She had sought an assurance from the Government’s prosecution service that, should her husband assist in her suicide, he would not be prosecuted. She alleged that the State’s failure to provide her with such an assurance was in violation of its duty under Article 3 to take steps to protect her from undue suffering. 2.2.2 Duty to investigate One of the most notable developments in the scope of application of Article 3 has been the finding of violations due to the lack of an effective investigation. Following Ribitsch v Austria,307 when an individual is taken into custody in good Pretty v UK, no. 2346/02, ECHR 2002-III, judgement of 29 April 2002. The Court also cited Keenan v UK (2001), op. cit., and D v UK, no. 30240/96, Rep. 1997-III, judgement of 2 May 1997. 304 Pretty v UK (2002), op. cit., §55. 305 Ibid. §55. 306 Ibid. §56. 307 Ribitsch v Austria, no. 18896/91, ECHR (Series A) No. 336, judgement of 4 December 1995, §108–111. See also Salman v Turkey (2000), op. cit.; Aksoy v Turkey (1996), op. cit., §61; Assenov and Others v Bulgaria, no. 24760/94, Rep. 1998-VIII, judgement of 28 October 1998; Labita v Italy, no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV, judgement of 6 April 2000; and, more recently, Stefan Iliev v Bulgaria, no. 53121/99, judgement of 10 May 2007. 302 303 65