ĐORĐEVIĆ v. CROATIA JUDGMENT 43 policy decisions have been adopted and no monitoring mechanisms have been put in place in order to recognise and prevent further harassment. The Court is struck by the lack of any true involvement of the social services and the absence of any indication that relevant experts were consulted who could have given appropriate recommendations and worked with the children concerned. Likewise, no counselling has been provided to the first applicant in order to aid him. In fact, the Court finds that, apart from responses to specific incidents, no relevant action of a general nature to combat the underlying problem has been taken by the competent authorities despite their knowledge that the first applicant had been systematically targeted and that future abuse was very likely to follow. 149. In view of this, the Court considers that the competent State authorities have not taken all reasonable measures to prevent abuse against the first applicant, notwithstanding the fact that the continuing risk of such abuse was real and foreseeable. 150. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the first applicant. (b) As regards the second applicant (i) General principles 151. While the essential object of Article 8 is to protect the individual against arbitrary interference by public authorities, it does not merely compel the State to abstain from such interference: in addition to this negative undertaking, there may be positive obligations inherent in effective respect for private or family life. These obligations may involve the adoption of measures designed to secure respect for private life even in the sphere of the relations of individuals between themselves (see X and Y v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1985, § 23, Series A no. 91; Botta v. Italy, 24 February 1998, § 33, Reports 1998-I; Mikulić v. Croatia, no. 53176/99, § 57, ECHR 2002-I; and Sandra Janković, cited above, § 44). 152. The Court has previously held, in various contexts, that the concept of private life includes a person’s psychological integrity. Under Article 8, States have in some circumstances a duty to protect the moral integrity of an individual from acts of other persons. The Court has also held that States have a positive obligation to ensure respect for human dignity and the quality of life in certain respects (see L. v. Lithuania, no. 27527/03, § 56, ECHR 2007-IV, and, mutatis mutandis, Pretty, cited above, § 65). (ii) Application of these principles to the present case 153. The Court considers that the acts of ongoing harassment have also affected the private and family life of the second applicant. It has found that the State authorities have not put in place adequate and relevant measures to prevent further harassment of the first applicant. Likewise, the State