The European Court of Human Rights has held on many occasions that Article 3 of the Convention enshrines one of the most fundamental values of democratic society. Under this provision, the state must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for his/her human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him/her to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his/her health and well-being are adequately secured.25 It is particularly important to protect inmates in closed establishments from torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, as well as to safeguard their right to life. Inmates are under exclusive control of the state and, therefore, the respective authorities are under the obligation to take all steps that are reasonably expected of them to prevent real and immediate risks to an individual’s physical integrity, of which the authorities had or ought to have had knowledge.26 In accordance with the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the standards established by the caselaw of the European Court of Human Rights, the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment and the right to life impose on the state both a negative obligation (to refrain from violating a right) and a positive obligation (to secure a person’s right). Prevention of torture is a global strategy that is aimed at substantially minimising risks and creating the environment in which torture and ill-treatment are expected to a lesser extent. The positive obligation taken up by the state to protect persons from torture and other forms of ill-treatment obviously includes taking the very preventive measures conducive to the protection of persons from ill-treatment. The necessity of the aforementioned preventive measures is pointed out in international human rights treaties, the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, numerous reports of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and the UN Committee against Torture. Accordingly, there should be such guarantees at the national level, both in legislation and practice that secure unconditional protection of individuals from ill-treatment. Article 1441 of the Criminal Code of Georgia does not encompass the instances where torture is committed through the tacit approval of a state official or other officials. Accordingly, in the Parliamentary Report of 2015, the Public Defender proposed to the Parliament of Georgia to amend Article 1441 of the Criminal Code of Georgia to ensure that the definition given in the UN Convention against Torture was accurately reflected in the Georgian legislation.27 In particular, according to the Public Defender’s recommendation, Article 25 26 27 24 Davtian v. Georgia, application no. 73241/01, judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 27 July 2006, para. 36. Pantea v. Romania, application no. 33343/96, judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 3 June 2003, para. 190; and Premininy v. Russia, application no. 44973/04, judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 10 February 2011, para. 84. For the purposes of the UN Convention against Torture, the term “torture” means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATION IN CLOSED INSTITUTIONS