A/HRC/58/49 practices of all religions or beliefs from infringement and to protect their followers from discrimination”.47 32. The Convention against Torture explicitly requires States to take positive measures in articles 2 (1) and 16. 48 Furthermore, the Committee against Torture has commented that “where State authorities or others acting in an official capacity or under colour of law, know or have reasonable grounds to believe that acts of torture or ill-treatment are being committed by non-State officials or private actors and they fail to exercise due diligence to prevent, investigate, prosecute and punish such non-State officials or private actors consistently with the Convention, the State bears responsibility and its officials should be considered as authors, complicit or otherwise responsible under the Convention for consenting to or acquiescing in such impermissible acts”.49 33. Most important in relation to the prevention of torture under the Convention against Torture is the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture. The work of the Subcommittee has been fundamental in strengthening protection against torture in States parties and helping these States to set up independent national preventive mechanisms. 34. Regional human rights systems have also shaped the positive obligations of States in relation to the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment, as well as the protection of freedom of religion or belief. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has set a very high standard of due diligence on the State to prevent violations.50 The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has also stressed that States must take positive measures to protect freedom of religion or belief and against discrimination based on religion or belief. 51 35. Similarly, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights has recognized that article 1 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights upholds the positive obligation of States “to diligently prevent, investigate, prosecute and punish non-State actors who commit acts of torture and other ill-treatment and to redress the harm suffered” even where those acts were at the “instigation, consent and acquiescence of the State”.52 36. The European Court of Human Rights has affirmed that positive obligations under article 3 comprise: “firstly, an obligation to put in place a legislative and regulatory framework of protection; secondly, in certain well-defined circumstances, an obligation to take operational measures to protect specific individuals against a risk of treatment contrary to that provision; and thirdly, an obligation to carry out an effective investigation into arguable claims of infliction of such treatment”.53 The Court has also found violations of the right to freedom of religion or belief due to “a failure of the State to comply with its positive obligations”.54 37. The specific regional treaties on the prohibition and prevention of torture and ill-treatment have elaborated guidelines that further emphasize the positive obligations of States in prevention, rather than just being reactive with respect to these rights (see para. 19 above). 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 8 Para. 9. Nowak, Birk and Monina, The United Nations Convention Against Torture and Its Optional Protocol, p. 78. General comment No. 2 (2007), para. 18. Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Judgment, 19 July 1988, para. 172. Estudio sobre Libertad de Religión y Creencia: Estándares Interamericanos, document 384/23, para. 5. See the Commission’s general comment No. 4 on the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights: the right to redress for victims of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment (article 5), para. 73. See also Amnesty International and Others v. Sudan, communications No. 48/90, No. 50/91, No. 52/91 and No. 89/93 (1999), para. 56. X and Others v. Bulgaria, Application No. 22457/16, Judgment, 2 February 2021, para. 178. Karaahmed v. Bulgaria, Application No. 30587/13, Judgment, 24 February 2015, para. 111. GE.24-24412