40 ĐORĐEVIĆ v. CROATIA JUDGMENT State, this again meant the ability to recognise and address discrimination based on the victim’s disability, and sufficient knowledge about disability to be able to apply the law with respect for the needs of persons with disabilities. In specific cases, observance of the non-discrimination principle might mean recognising the specific situation of persons with disabilities compared with their non-disabled peers. The second paragraph of Article 5 alluded to the obligation of the State to protect persons with disabilities against discrimination on all grounds. Again, meeting this obligation required extensive training of State agents. 135. The third-party intervener also pointed out that the United Nations Convention obliged the States Parties to “take all effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent persons with disabilities” from being subjected to violence, which also required training of those working in the field of the administration of justice. 136. In conclusion, the European Disability Forum submitted that, so far, disability hate crime had not received enough attention from lawmakers and law-enforcement authorities. This had resulted in a failure to recognise disability hate crime as such, as well as in under-reporting and misunderstanding of that phenomenon. The response of the authorities to this problem should shift from reactive to proactive and be aimed at protecting persons with disabilities from all acts of violence. 2. The Court’s assessment (a) As regards the first applicant (i) General principles 137. The Court reiterates that Article 3 of the Convention must be regarded as one of the most fundamental provisions of the Convention and as enshrining core values of the democratic societies making up the Council of Europe (see Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, § 49, ECHR 2002-III). In contrast to the other provisions in the Convention, it is cast in absolute terms, without exception or proviso, or the possibility of derogation under Article 15 of the Convention (see, inter alia, Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, § 79, Reports 1996-V). 138. The Court reiterates that, as regards the question whether the State could be held responsible, under Article 3, for ill-treatment inflicted on persons by non-State entities, the obligation on the High Contracting Parties under Article 1 of the Convention to secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention, taken together with Article 3, requires States to take measures designed to ensure that individuals within their jurisdiction are not subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including such ill-treatment