In a number of cases, the European Court has held that there has been a failure at prosecutorial and judicial level to investigate adequately allegations of torture and ill-treatment when they were first made. Such failures detract from the procedural protections that should be in place for all victims of torture. Failure to comply with the procedural requirements to protect against torture may, in itself, amount to a violation of the prohibition on torture, inhuman and degrading treatment as protected by Article 3 ECHR.390 The UN Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors state: When prosecutors come into possession of evidence obtained against suspects they know or believe on reasonable grounds was obtained through recourse to unlawful methods constituting a grave violation of the suspect’s human rights, especially involving torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or other abuses of human rights, they shall refuse to use such evidence against anyone other than those who used such methods, or inform the court accordingly, and shall take all necessary steps to ensure that those responsible for using such methods are brought to justice.391 Retaliation against victims, witnesses and any other person acting on behalf of torture victims Article 13 of the CAT states: “Each State Party shall ensure that any individual who alleges he has been subjected to torture in any territory under its jurisdiction has the right to complain to, and to have his case promptly and impartially examined by, its competent authorities. Steps shall be taken to ensure that the complainant and witnesses are protected against all ill-treatment or intimidation as a consequence of his complaint or any evidence given.” These protections should extend also to those who act on behalf of torture victims. As such, the Special Rapporteur on Torture may intervene when measures of retaliation are taken or threatened against victims of torture, their relatives, members of civil society, lawyers working on torture complaints, and medical or other experts acting on behalf of torture victims. Reparation to torture victims A key aspect of the absolute prohibition on torture and the positive obligation to protect against it is the requirement to provide effective and prompt reparation to torture victims, including facilities for their rehabilitation. Expulsion, deportation, rendering and extradition392 Extradition and deportation play an important role in combating terrorism and other serious crime, and they directly relate to a state’s positive obligations. Particularly in the context of 390 See, most recently, ECtHR, Mammadov (Jalaloglu) v. Azerbaijan, Application no. 34445/04, 11 January 2007, paras. 71-79 (“The minimum standards as to effectiveness defined by the Court’s case-law also include the requirements that the investigation must be independent, impartial and subject to public scrutiny, and that the competent authorities must act with exemplary diligence and promptness”), but also in the same vein ECtHR, Menesheva v. Russia, Case no. 59261/00, 9 March 2006, para. 67 and op. cit., note 269, ECtHR, Isayeva, Yusupova and Bazayeva v. Russia, paras. 208-213. 391 UN Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors, adopted by the Eighth Crime Congress, Havana, 27 August-7 September 1990, in para. “Role in criminal proceedings”. 392 Cf. OSCE/ODIHR, “Background paper on extradition and human rights in the context of counter-terrorism”, March 2007 (updated version), available at http://www.osce.org/odihr/publications.html. Countering Terrorism, Protecting Human Rights 137