of the rights recognized by the Convention, “States must prevent, investigate and punish any violation of the rights recognized by the Convention and, moreover, if possible attempt to restore the right violated and provide compensation as warranted for damages resulting from the violation.”30 17. The prohibition of torture brings about a duty on States to take appropriate and effective measures to prevent torture. This duty is derived from the absolute and non-derogable nature of the prohibition of torture and by the fact that the prohibition of torture is a jus cogens norm of international law which gives rise to obligations erga ommes. 18. In Prosecutor v Furundzija, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) provided: “Firstly, given the importance that the international community attaches to the protection of individuals from torture, the prohibition against torture is particularly stringent and sweeping. States are obliged not only to prohibit and punish torture, but also to forestall its occurrence: it is insufficient merely to intervene after the infliction of torture, when the physical or moral integrity of human beings has already been irremediably harmed. Consequently, States are bound to put in place all those measures that may pre-empt the perpetration of torture. As was authoritatively held by the European Court of Human Rights in Soering, international law intends to bar not only actual breaches but also potential breaches of the prohibition against torture (as well as any inhuman and degrading treatment). It follows that international rules prohibit not only torture but also (i) the failure to adopt the national measures necessary for implementing the prohibition and (ii) the maintenance in force or passage of laws which are contrary to the prohibition.”31 19. Under treaty law, the UN Convention against Torture and the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture enshrine the duty to prevent torture. 20. Article 2 of the UNCAT provides that all States shall “take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.” Article 16 of the UNCAT requires that “each State shall undertake to prevent (…) other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” 21. At a regional level, States have a corresponding obligation under Article 6 of the IACPPT to “take effective measures to prevent and punish torture within [its] jurisdictions” Likewise, the same article also refers to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 22. In its General Comment No. 2,32 the Committee against Torture elaborated on this duty, characterising it as an obligation to “take positive effective measures to ensure that such conduct and any recurrences thereof are effectively prevented.”33 Moreover, the Committee is of the opinion that “[i]f the measures adopted by the State party fail to accomplish the purpose of eradicating acts of torture, the Convention requires that they be revised and/or that new, more effective measures be adopted.”34 30 Velasquez Rodriguez v Honduras, Judgment of 29 July 1998, Inter-Am.Ct.H.R. (Ser.C) No.4 (1998) at §166 (emphasis added). 31 ICTY Trial Chamber, Case No. IT-95-17/1-T (10 December 1998) § 148. 32 Committee against Torture, General Comment No. 2, UN doc. CAT/C/GC/2 (24 January 2008), available at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cat/comments.htm. 33 As above, § 4. 34 As above. 5