A/HRC/25/60 torture or other ill-treatment but also to suppress, prevent and discourage such practices. States have not only the obligation to “respect”, but to “ensure respect” for, the absolute prohibition against torture. In this context, the Human Rights Committee has authoritatively interpreted article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and found that it is not sufficient for the implementation of article 7 to prohibit such treatment or punishment, or to make it a crime: States should inform the Committee of the measures they take to prevent and punish acts of torture or other ill-treatment in any territory under their jurisdiction.28 41. Articles 2, paragraph 1, and 16, paragraph 1, of the Convention and article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, oblige States parties to take measures that will reinforce the prohibition against torture and other ill-treatment in their jurisdictions through legislative, administrative, judicial or other actions that must, in the end, be effective in preventing such treatment. States are obligated to adopt effective measures to prevent public authorities and other persons acting in an official capacity from directly committing, instigating, inciting, encouraging, acquiescing in, or otherwise participating or being complicit in acts of torture. The Committee against Torture has authoritatively held that the obligations to prevent torture and other ill-treatment under article 16, paragraph 1, of the Convention are indivisible, interdependent and interrelated. In addition, conditions that give rise to ill-treatment frequently facilitate torture and therefore the measures to prevent torture must be applied to prevent ill-treatment.29 42. Although articles 2, paragraph 1, and 16, paragraph 1, of the Convention and article 2 of the Covenant contain a jurisdictional limitation, it is clear that the obligation to take measures to prevent acts of torture or other ill-treatment includes actions that the State takes in its own jurisdiction to prevent torture or other ill-treatment in another jurisdiction. In Soering v. the United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights found that the extraditing State would be responsible for the breach, even where such treatment is subsequently beyond its control.30 The prohibition against acts of torture and other illtreatment requires States to abstain from acting within their territory and spheres of control in a manner that exposes individuals outside their territory and control to a real risk of such acts. The fact that torture or other ill-treatment occurs outside the territory or the direct control of the State in question does not relieve that State from responsibility for its own actions vis-à-vis the incident.31 States have an international legal obligation to safeguard the rights of all individuals under their jurisdiction, which implies that they have a duty to ensure that foreign agencies do not engage in activities that violate human rights on their territory (including as regards the prohibition against torture or other ill-treatment) and to refrain from participating in any such activities (A/HRC/14/46, para. 50). The International Court of Justice, in its advisory opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, recognized that the jurisdiction of States is primarily territorial, but concluded that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights extends to “acts done by a State in the exercise of its jurisdiction outside of its own territory.”32 Moreover, the jus cogens nature of the prohibition against torture implies that States are under an obligation to refuse to accept any results arising from its violation by another State.33 28 29 30 31 32 33 Human Rights Committee general comment No. 20, (1992), para. 8. Committee against Torture, general comment No.2, paras. 3 and 17. Soering v. the United Kingdom, application No. 14038/88, European Court of Human Rights, judgement of 7 July 1989, para 88. See E/CN.4/2002/137, para. 14 and “Rotten fruit: State solicitation, acceptance and the use of information obtained through torture by another State”, p.370. Advisory opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2004, para. 111. Ibid., paras. 159 and 163 and A and others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, para. 34. 11