no derogation from it is permissible under Article 15 § 2 even in the event of a public emergency threatening the life of the nation […]14 Similarly, the CPT’s position is unequivocal: “In fact, it is precisely at a time of emergency that the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment is particularly relevant, and the strength of a society’s commitment to the fundamental value it embodies truly put to the test. Like the prohibition of slavery, the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment is one of those few human rights which admit of no derogations. Talk of “striking the right balance” is misguided when such human rights are at stake. Of course, resolute action is required to counter terrorism; but that action cannot be allowed to degenerate into exposing people to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. Democratic societies must remain true to the values that distinguish them from others.”15 The absolute prohibition of ill-treatment is also a cornerstone of the Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on human rights and the fight against terrorism,16 and has also recently been affirmed by CAT.17 1.2 The obligation to investigate ill-treatment 1.2.1 Without a positive obligation to investigate allegations or other indications of ill-treatment, the prohibition would be rendered theoretical and illusory, thus allowing state authorities and their agents to act with impunity. The duty to investigate serious (deliberate) illtreatment as well as other serious human rights violations has an absolute character. Despite the lack of express wording, Article 3 places a legal obligation upon member states both to refrain from ill-treatment and to take positive action in order to prevent ill-treatment. The concept of positive obligations has evolved as part of the Article 1 duty to secure the rights and freedoms enshrined in the ECHR. The word “secure” raises the inference of the existence of positive obligations to take measures to ensure that rights are adequately protected, both in theory and in practice. 14. Zelilof v. Greece, Judgment of 24 May 2004, application no. 17060/03, para. 42. 15. 15th General Report on the CPT’s activities, CPT/Inf (2005) 17, Preface. 16. See Guideline IV of the text adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 July 2002. 17. “Accordingly, the Committee has considered the prohibition of ill-treatment to be likewise non-derogable under the Convention and its prevention to be an effective and nonderogable measure.” General Comment N2, CAT/C/GC/2, para.3. Explanatory note ► Page 19