in Peers v Greece to find that the treatment in that case was degrading, despite the lack of evidence of any “positive intention of humiliating or debasing” the applicant.295 Thus, a lack of intent will not prevent a finding of a violation. However, following Price v UK, the Court may take the absence of intent into account when considering the amount of compensation to be awarded.296 Article 3 imposes a negative obligation upon States not to subject people to torture, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. The Court and Commission have found that State obligations under this article go further, and entail positive duties to protect individuals from these forms of abuse. 2.2.1 Duty to protect from ill-treatment by private actors In general, actions incompatible with Article 3 incur the liability of a State only if they were inflicted by persons holding an official position. However, the obligation on States Parties under Article 1 of the Convention to secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 3, requires States to take measures designed to ensure that individuals within their jurisdiction are not subjected to torture or inhuman and degrading treatment by private actors. The European Regional System 2.2 States Parties’ Obligations 2 This positive duty was considered in A v UK,297 which involved the caning of a boy by his stepfather. In this instance, the stepfather was prosecuted, but was ultimately acquitted by a jury that considered the punishment to be “reason Peers v Greece, no. 28524/95, ECHR 2001-III, judgement of 19 April 2001, §§74–75. The applicant in this case was a convicted drug user, who was detained in a psychiatric hospital within a prison for a period of time and then transferred to the prison’s segregation unit. It was alleged that the conditions of detention were poor and unsuitable for a person in need of psychiatric care. The Court considered that the authorities omission to improve unacceptable conditions denoted “a lack of respect for the applicant,” and that there had therefore been a violation of Article 3. See also, for example, Kalashnikov v Russia, no. 47095/99, ECHR 2002-VI, judgement of 15 July 2002, §101; Labzov v Russia, no. 62208/00, judgement of 16 June 2005, §48. 296 The applicant in Price v UK did not have any limbs, and suffered from kidney problems. She was imprisoned for seven days for contempt of court, during which she was not allowed to use a battery charger for her electric chair, as this was considered to be a luxury item. Furthermore, she spent one night in a police cell, which was not appropriate for a person with disabilities, and its cold condition provoked a kidney infection. She was subsequently moved to a prison health care centre which was also unsuitable for her needs. The Court held that, while there was no evidence of any positive intention to humiliate or debase the applicant, the conditions in which she was kept were inappropriate and constituted degrading treatment. However, the Court took the lack of an intention to humiliate or debase the applicant into account when calculating the amount of compensation to be awarded. Price v UK, no. 33394/96, ECHR 2001-VII, judgement of 10 July 2001, §34. 297 A v UK, no. 25599/94, Rep. 1996-VI, judgement of 23 September 1998. 295 63