80 United Nations Convention Against Torture and its Optional Protocol regard: In a case of torture it usually finds both, a violation of Article 1, as well as Article 2(1).42 However, it has also found violations of Article 2(1) read in conjunction with Article 1, but not of Article 1,43 as well as a few cases where it found a violation of Article 1 and not of Article 2.44 In Ali Ben Salem v Tunisia and Saadia Ali v Tunisia, where the Committee only found a violation of Article 1, but rejected finding a violation of Article 2, it did not dispute that a case of torture occurred but concluded—​without any more detailed argumentation or analysis—​that ‘the documents communicated to it furnish no proof that the State party has failed to discharge its obligations under these provisions of the Convention’.45 This conclusion is insofar surprising, as that every single act of torture means that the State has failed to take effective measures to prevent torture and, therefore, violated its respective obligation in Article 2(1). As already concluded above,46 it would be expected that in a case of torture, the Committee finds a violation of Article 2 (1) in conjunction with Article 1.47 24  While Article 2(1) stipulates that each State party has to take effective measures to prevent torture, there is no explicit reference in Article 2(1) to the time frame to be applied in implementing these measures. The question therefore arises as to whether such measures can be implemented gradually through progressive implementation or whether States parties are required to meet their obligations immediately.48 In general, the Committee has not accepted the principle of progressive implementation. It has rejected the argument that compliance with Article 2 was dependent on ‘. . . limited budgetary resources or limited professional awareness among staff’.49 The Committee, however, has not always interpreted this provision as to require strict immediate implementation. In its concluding observations to Kazakhstan, it recommended that the State party proceed ‘promptly’ to amend its domestic penal law to include the crime of torture, consistent with the Convention, and to take ‘urgent and effective steps’ to ensure the investigation, prosecution, and punishment regarding torture allegations.50 In contrast, in the case of Romania, the Committee stated that ‘the existing Government could not be seriously blamed, because it was quite clear that prison conditions could not be changed overnight and that considerable financial investment was needed. Nevertheless, the Romanian 42   Dmytro Slyusar v Ukraine, No 353/​2008, UN Doc CAT/​C/​47/​D/​353/​2008, 14 November 2011, para 9.4; Gerasimov v Kazakhstan, No 433/​2010, UN Doc CAT/​C/​48/​D/​433/​2010, 24 May 2012, para 13, Djamila Bendib v Algeria, No 376/​2009, UN Doc CAT/​C/​51/​D/​376/​2009, 8 November 2013, paras 6.2 and 6.3; Boniface Ntikarahera v Burundi, No 503/​2012, UN Doc CAT/​C/​52/​D/​503/​2012, 12 May 2014, para 7; Nouar Abdelmalek v Algeria, No 402/​2009, UN Doc CAT/​C/​52/​D/​402/​2009, 23 May 2014, para 11.2; Ramiro Ramírez Martínez et al v Mexico, No 500/​2012, UN Doc CAT/​C/​55/​D/​500/​2012, 4 August 2015, para 17.4; X v Burundi, No 553/​2013, UN Doc CAT/​C/​55/​D/​553/​2013, 10 August 2015, para 7.2; Patrice Gahungu v Burundi, No 522/​2012, UN Doc CAT/​C/​55/​D/​522/​2012, 10 August 2015, paras 7.2–​7.4; EN v Burundi, No 578/​2013, UN Doc CAT/​C/​56/​D/​578/​2013, 25 November 2015, paras 7.3 and 7.4. See also above Art 1, §§ 134 and 135 on the question of whether there can be a legal obligation emanating out of Art 1. 43   Déogratias Niyonzima v Burundi, No 514/​2012, UN Doc CAT/​C/​53/​D/​514/​2012, 21 November 2014, para 8.2. Hilda Mariolyn Hernández Colmenarez and Francisco Arturo Guerrero Sánchez v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No 456/​2011, UN Doc CAT/​C/​54/​D/​456/​2011, 15 May 2015, paras 6.6, 7. 44   Ali Ben Salem v Tunisia, No 269/​2005, UN Doc CAT/​C/​39/​D/​269/​2005, 7 November 2007, para 16.5; Saadia Ali v Tunisia, No 291/​2006, UN Doc CAT/​C/​41/​D/​291/​2006, 21 November 2008, paras 15.4, 15.5. 45   Ali Ben Salem v Tunisia, No 269/​2005 (n 44)  para 16.6; Saadia Ali v Tunisia, No 291/​2006 (n 44) para 15.6. 46   See also above Art 1 §§ 134 and 135. 47   This was also confirmed in an informal consultation with the CAT Committee, 21 November 2017. 48 49   Boulesbaa (n 26) 70ff; Ingelse (n 28) 261ff. See also above 2.1.   CAT/​C/​SR.101, para  15. 50   A/​56/​44, para  129. Zach