A/HRC/25/60 standard, especially because for torture and other ill-treatment there is a clear, universal and absolute prohibition of a peremptory nature and an affirmative obligation to prevent. The responsibility of a State is objective and results from a policy or practice of acquiescing in torture in this manner. In addition, the special rules defined by draft articles 40 and 41 on the responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts, referring to a “serious breach” of an “obligation arising under a peremptory norm of general international law”, support the argument for a different, lower standard of intent for State complicity in torture. 53. There is State responsibility for complicity in torture when one State gives assistance to another State in the commission of torture or other ill-treatment, or acquiesces in such acts, in the knowledge (including imputed knowledge) of the real risk that torture or ill-treatment will take place or has taken place, and aids and assists the torturing State in maintaining impunity for the acts of torture or ill-treatment. A State would thus be responsible when it was aware of the risk that information was obtained by torture or other ill-treatment, or ought to have been aware of that risk and did not take reasonable steps to prevent it.42 Moreover, the Special Rapporteur finds that the assistance provided by States does not have to have a substantial effect on the perpetration of the crime of torture itself for it to be regarded as responsible. Systematic torture 54. Collecting, sharing or receiving information from a country that is known, or ought to be known, to use torture in a widespread or systematic way is turning a blind eye to what goes on and is tantamount to complicity in torture, as it tacitly acknowledges the illegal situation and fails to prevent and discourage the use of torture. Systematic or widespread violations include torture, both as a State policy and as a practice by public authorities, over which a Government has no effective control. Thus, if a State is known to torture detainees, or specific categories of detainees, systematically, no other State may actively collect, share or recognize any information it receives from an agency of that State as “lawfully obtained”, nor may it “passively” accept such information. In addition, collecting, sharing or receiving information from a State that is known, or ought to be known, to use torture in a widespread or systematic way would also trigger State responsibility under draft article 41 on the responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts. Commentaries of the International Law Commission specify that the non-recognition obligation contained in draft article 41, paragraph 2, also prohibits acts which would imply such recognition. 55. The Special Rapporteur therefore finds that the receiving States are responsible because their policies and practices serve to maintain the situation of illegality, which constitutes a serious breach of the peremptory norm prohibiting torture and other illtreatment and is irreconcilable with the obligation erga omnes of States to cooperate in the eradication of torture.43 Even if ultimately not used, and therefore not under scrutiny, the receipt of information tainted by torture or other ill-treatment, involving countries with a poor human rights record, condones torture or ill-treatment, makes it less likely that a State concerned will speak out against such practices and leads to State responsibility for complicity in torture and in the commission of internationally wrongful acts. In other cases 56. In cases where there is no record of “systematic” torture, State responsibility is triggered if the State that collects, shares or receives information knew, or ought to have 42 43 14 A/HRC/10/3, para. 55, A/67/396, para. 48, and A/HRC/13/42, paras. 39 and 40. See also “Rotten fruit: State solicitation, acceptance and the use of information obtained through torture by another State”, p. 356. See “Cooperating with the enemy of mankind: can States simply turn a blind eye to torture?” p. 777 and A/HRC/10/3, para. 55.