The European Regional System 2 The jurisprudence to date thus suggests that, in the future, the European Court may be prepared to accept diplomatic assurances against torture and ill-treatment where they are made in good faith, the authorities of the receiving State are in fact capable of preventing such treatment in the circumstances of the case, and, following the jurisprudence of the UN bodies, with the further possible proviso that the assurance contains some rigorous mechanism for monitoring compliance. The Court is due to revisit this issue in a number of pending cases, including Ramzy v the Netherlands, Ahmed and Aswat v UK, and Boumediene v Bosnia and Herzegovina, which may further elaborate its position.438 Conclusion The simple formulation of the prohibition of ill-treatment in Article 3 of the ECHR hides the complexity of the underlying issues. Based on this proclamation, the European Court and Commission developed intricate and distinct definitions of the various prohibited acts. While the European Court has stated that the three categories of prohibited acts can and should be distinguished, section 2.1 showed that it can be difficult to pinpoint the distinguishing elements of such a categorisation. There is a danger that such an approach may lead to the conclusion that acts ‘falling short’ of torture are ‘only’ inhuman or degrading treatment. It must be remembered that acts of inhuman and degrading treatment are no less a violation of Article 3 than acts of torture. The importance and instructive nature of the European jurisprudence cannot be overstated, and it has greatly influenced other regional and international judicial and quasi-judicial bodies, particularly as regards the definitions of torture, inhuman and degrading treatment. The Greek Case, for example, had a significant impact upon the drafting of the UN Declaration against Torture (1975) and the subsequent definition of torture contained within the UN Convention against Torture (1984). Furthermore, the judgements have had a profound impact on penal reform within Europe, by proscribing various treatments or punishments as violations of Article 3. The Court has also anticipated and contributed to societal change. For example, the judgements of the Court on corporal punishment led to the UK Government prohibiting corporal punishment in public schools from 1986, and in private schools from 1998. Thus, the Court has not merely reflected the evolution of human rights 90 Ramzy v the Netherlands, no. 25424/05, pending; Ahmed and Aswat v UK, no. 24027/07, pending; Boumediene v Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 38703/06, pending. 438