Article 2. Obligation to Prevent Torture 79 submit an individual complaint to the CAT Committee under Articles 2 or 16, respectively by now is clearly settled:36 not only Pieter Kooijmans, the first UNSRT, answered this question in the affirmative by referring to the implicit obligation of States under Article 2(1),37 but extensive case law of the Committee in which it has found a violation of Article 2(1) confirm this. 21  Generally, Article 2(1) is seen as an umbrella clause encompassing all the obligations to prevent torture as included but not limited to the in various provisions of the Convention, and Article 16 as constituting an obligation for States parties to prevent cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. The typical obligations to prevent torture can be found in Articles 10 (education and training of law enforcement and other personnel), 11 (systematic review of interrogation methods), 12 (ex officio investigation of torture cases), 13 (investigation of allegations by torture victims), and 15 (non-​admissibility of evidence extracted by torture in any proceedings). But also the prohibition of refoulement in Article 3 and the obligation of States to make torture a criminal offence with appropriate penalties in Article 4 and related provisions about universal and other forms of criminal jurisdiction in Articles 5 to 9 have a strong preventive character. Even Article 14, which provides for the right of torture victims to redress, can be interpreted as a measure with a deterrent effect aimed at preventing torture in the future.38 If the individual torturers were held accountable to pay full compensation for all long-​term rehabilitation costs of their torture victims, this would probably have a stronger deterrent effect than many criminal sanctions.39 22  The understanding of Article 2 as an umbrella clause is partly, but not consistently reflected in the Committee’s individual complaints procedure: when finding violations of other Articles of the Convention, the Committee in most cases (except with regard to Article 3) seems to find a violation of Article 2 (1).40 At the same time, the Committee has found numerous violations of the Convention, especially with regard to Article 3, without finding a violation of Article 2(1).41 When consistently interpreting Article 2(1) as umbrella clause of the Convention, in principle, every time there is an act of torture, the Committee would actually also have to find a violation of Article 2(1). 23  Another question has been whether every single act of torture means that the State concerned has failed to take effective measures to prevent torture and, therefore, violated its respective obligation in Article 2(1). The practice of the Committee differs in this 36   See Ingelse (n 28) 243. In contrast to the original Swedish draft which still combined torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, the drafters agreed to separate the respective obligations. But Article 16 contains a provision similar to Article 2(1) requiring States parties to prevent in any territory under their jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment not amounting to torture as defined in Article 1. See below Art 16, 3.6. 37 38   Kooijmans (n 29) 95.   See also below Art 14. 39   See the landmark decision of Guridi v Spain, No 212/​2002, UN Doc CAT/​C/​34/​D/​212/​2002, 17 May 2005, where the Committee confirmed this broad interpretation. 40   See eg Abdulrahman Kabura v Burundi, No 549/​2013, UN Doc CAT/​C/​59/​D/​549/​2013, 11 November 2016 with regard to Arts 2(1), 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16; Elaïba v Tunisia, No 551/​2013, UN Doc CAT/​C/​ 57/​D/​551/​2013, 6 May 2016, with regard to Arts 2(1), 11, 13–​15; Saidi Ntahiraja v Burundi, No 575/​2013, UN Doc CAT/​C/​55/​D/​575/​2013, 3 August 2015, with regard to Arts 2(1), 11, 13, and 14. 41   See eg MB et al v Denmark, No 634/​2014, UN Doc CAT/​C/​59/​D/​634/​2014, 25 November 2016; RD et al v Switzerland, No 558/​2013, UN Doc CAT/​C/​57/​D/​558/​2013, 13 May 2016; LA v Algeria, No 531/​ 2012, UN Doc CAT/​C/​57/​D/​531/​2012, 12 May 2016 and many more cases in which a violation of Article 3 but not Article 2(1) was found. In the case Ennaâma Asfari v Morocco, No 606/​2014, UN Doc CAT/​C/​59/​D/​ 606/​2014, 15 November 2016 a violation of Arts 13, 14, and 15, but not Art 2 was found. Zach