Guidelines on Eradicating impunity for serious human rights violations
H/Inf (2011) 7
Eradicating impunity
for serious human rights violations
Guidelines and reference texts
Directorate General of Human Rights and Rule of Law
Council of Europe
Strasbourg
Édition française : Eliminer l’impunité pour les violations graves des droits de l’Homme.
Lignes directrices et textes de référence
Directorate General of Human Rights and Rule of Law
Council of Europe
F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex
www.coe.int/justice
© Council of Europe 2011
Printed at the Council of Europe
Guidelines adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 30 March
2011 at the 1110th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Reference texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Eradicating impunity
for serious human rights violations
Contents
5
Eradicating impunity
for serious human rights violations
Guidelines adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 30 March 2011
at the 1110th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies
Preamble
The Committee of Ministers,
Recalling that those responsible for acts amounting to serious human rights violations
must be held to account for their actions;
Considering that a lack of accountability encourages repetition of crimes, as
perpetrators and others feel free to commit further offences without fear of punishment;
Recalling that impunity for those responsible for acts amounting to serious human
rights violations inflicts additional suffering on victims;
Considering that impunity must be fought as a matter of justice for the victims,
as a deterrent to prevent new violations, and to uphold the rule of law and public
trust in the justice system, including where there is a legacy of serious human
rights violations;
Considering the need for states to co-operate at the international level in order
to put an end to impunity;
Reaffirming that it is an important goal of the Council of Europe to eradicate
impunity throughout the continent, as the Parliamentary Assembly recalled in
its Recommendation 1876 (2009) on “The state of human rights in Europe: the
need to eradicate impunity”, and that its action may contribute to worldwide efforts
against impunity;
Eradicating impunity for serious human rights violations – Guidelines
6
Bearing in mind the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS No. 5, hereinafter
“the Convention”), in the light of the relevant case-law of the European
Court of Human Rights (the Court), as well as the standards of the European
Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment
or Punishment and other relevant standards established within the framework
of the Council of Europe;
Stressing that the full and speedy execution of the judgments of the Court is a
key factor in combating impunity;
Bearing in mind the Set of Principles for the Protection and Promotion of Human
Rights through Action to Combat Impunity of the United Nations Commission
on Human Rights;
Recalling the importance of the right to an effective remedy for victims of human
rights violations, as contained in numerous international instruments – notably
in Article 13 of the Convention, Article 2 of the United Nations
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 8 of the Universal
Declaration on Human Rights – and as reflected in the United Nations
General Assembly’s Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and
Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law
and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law;
Having regard to the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers Recommendation
Rec (2006) 8 to member states on assistance to crime victims of 14 June
2006, and the United Nations General Assembly’s Declaration of Basic Principles
of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power;
Bearing in mind the need to ensure that, when fighting impunity, the fundamental
rights of persons accused of serious human rights violations as well as the
rule of law are respected;
Adopts the following guidelines and invites member states to implement them
effectively and ensure that they are widely disseminated, and where necessary
translated, in particular among all authorities responsible for the fight against
impunity.
I. The need to combat impunity
1. These guidelines address the problem of impunity in respect of serious
human rights violations. Impunity arises where those responsible for acts
that amount to serious human rights violations are not brought to account.
Scope of the guidelines
7
2. When it occurs, impunity is caused or facilitated notably by the lack of diligent
reaction of institutions or state agents to serious human rights violations.
In these circumstances, faults might be observed within state
institutions as well as at each stage of the judicial or administrative proceedings.
3. States are to combat impunity as a matter of justice for the victims, as a deterrent
with respect to future human rights violations and in order to uphold
the rule of law and public trust in the justice system.
II. Scope of the guidelines
1. These guidelines deal with impunity for acts or omissions that amount to serious
human rights violations and which occur within the jurisdiction of the
state concerned.
2. They are addressed to states, and cover the acts or omissions of states, including
those carried out through their agents. They also cover states’ obligations
under the Convention to take positive action in respect of non-state
actors.
3. For the purposes of these guidelines, “serious human rights violations” concern
those acts in respect of which states have an obligation under the Convention,
and in the light of the Court’s case-law, to enact criminal law
provisions. Such obligations arise in the context of the right to life (Article
2 of the Convention), the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment (Article 3 of the Convention), the prohibition of
forced labour and slavery (Article 4 of the Convention) and with regard to
certain aspects of the right to liberty and security (Article 5, paragraph 1, of
the Convention) and of the right to respect for private and family life (Article
8 of the Convention). Not all violations of these articles will necessarily
reach this threshold.
4. In the guidelines, the term “perpetrators” refers to those responsible for acts
or omissions amounting to serious human rights violations.
5. In the guidelines, the term “victim” refers to a natural person who has suffered
harm, including physical or mental injury, emotional suffering or economic
loss, caused by a serious human rights violation. The term “victim”
may also include, where appropriate, the immediate family or dependants of
the direct victim. A person shall be considered a victim regardless of whether
the perpetrator of the violation is identified, apprehended, prosecuted, or
Eradicating impunity for serious human rights violations – Guidelines
8
convicted and regardless of the familial relationship between the perpetrator
and the victim.
6. These guidelines complement and do not replace other standards relating to
impunity. In particular, they neither replicate nor qualify the obligations and
responsibilities of states under international law, including international humanitarian
law and international criminal law, nor are they intended to resolve
questions as to the relationship between international human rights
law and other rules of international law. Nothing in these guidelines prevents
states from establishing or maintaining stronger or broader measures to fight
impunity.
III. General measures for the prevention of impunity
1. In order to avoid loopholes or legal gaps contributing to impunity,
• States should take all necessary measures to comply with their obligations
under the Convention to adopt criminal law provisions to effectively punish
serious human rights violations through adequate penalties. These provisions
should be applied by the appropriate executive and judicial authorities
in a coherent and non-discriminatory manner.
• States should provide for the possibility of disciplinary proceedings against
state officials.
• In the same manner, states should provide a mechanism involving criminal
and disciplinary measures in order to sanction behaviour and practice within
state authorities which lead to impunity for serious human rights violations.
2. States – including their officials and representatives – should publicly condemn
serious human rights violations.
3. States should elaborate policies and take practical measures to prevent and
combat an institutional culture within their authorities which promotes impunity.
Such measures should include:
• promoting a culture of respect for human rights and systematic work for the
implementation of human rights at the national level;
• establishing or reinforcing appropriate training and control mechanisms;
• introducing anti-corruption policies;
• making the relevant authorities aware of their obligations, including taking
necessary measures, with regard to preventing impunity, and establishing
appropriate sanctions for the failure to uphold those obligations;
• conducting a policy of zero-tolerance of serious human rights violations;
Safeguards to protect persons deprived of their liberty
9
• providing information to the public concerning violations and the authorities’
response to these violations;
• preserving archives and facilitating appropriate access to them through applicable
mechanisms.
4. States should establish and publicise clear procedures for reporting allegations
of serious human rights violations, both within their authorities and for
the general public. States should ensure that such reports are received and
effectively dealt with by the competent authorities.
5. States should take measures to encourage reporting by those who are aware
of serious human rights violations. They should, where appropriate, take
measures to ensure that those who report such violations are protected from
any harassment and reprisals.
6. States should establish plans and policies to counter discrimination that may
lead to serious human rights violations and to impunity for such acts and
their recurrence.
7. States should also establish mechanisms to ensure the integrity and accountability
of their agents. States should remove from office individuals who
have been found, by a competent authority, to be responsible for serious
human rights violations or for furthering or tolerating impunity, or adopt
other appropriate disciplinary measures. States should notably develop and
institutionalise codes of conduct.
IV. Safeguards to protect persons deprived of their liberty
from serious human rights violations
1. States must provide adequate guarantees to persons deprived of their liberty
by a public authority, in order to prevent any unlawful detention or ill-treatment,
and ensure that any unlawful detention or ill-treatment does not go unpunished.
In particular, persons deprived of their liberty should be provided
with the following guarantees:
• the right to inform, or to have informed, a third party of his or her choice of
their deprivation of liberty, their location and of any transfers;
• the right to have access to a lawyer;
• the right to have access to a medical doctor.
Persons deprived of their liberty should be expressly informed without delay
about all their rights, including those listed above. Any possibility for the authorities
to delay the exercise of one of these rights, in order to protect the
Eradicating impunity for serious human rights violations – Guidelines
10
interests of justice or public order, should be clearly defined by law, and its
application should be strictly limited in time and subject to appropriate procedural
safeguards.
2. In addition to the rights listed above, persons deprived of their liberty are entitled
to take court proceedings through which the lawfulness of their detention
shall be speedily decided and release ordered if that detention is not
lawful. Persons arrested or detained in relation to the commission of an offence
must be brought promptly before a judge, and they have the right to
receive a trial within a reasonable time or to be released pending trial, in accordance
with the Court’s case-law.
3. States should take effective measures to safeguard against the risk of serious
human rights violations by the keeping of records concerning the date, time
and location of persons deprived of their liberty, as well as other relevant information
concerning the deprivation of liberty.
4. States must ensure that officials carrying out arrests or interrogations or
using force can be identified in any subsequent criminal or disciplinary investigations
or proceedings.
V. The duty to investigate
1. Combating impunity requires that there be an effective investigation in cases
of serious human rights violations. This duty has an absolute character.
The right to life (Article 2 of the Convention)
The obligation to protect the right to life requires inter alia that there should be
an effective investigation when individuals have been killed, whether by state
agents or private persons, and in all cases of suspicious death. This duty also
arises in situations in which it is uncertain whether or not the victim has died,
and there is reason to believe the circumstances are suspicious, such as in case
of enforced disappearances.
The prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment (Article 3 of the Convention)
States are under a procedural obligation arising under Article 3 of the Convention
to carry out an effective investigation into credible claims that a person has
been seriously ill-treated, or when the authorities have reasonable grounds to
suspect that such treatment has occurred.
The duty to investigate
11
The prohibition of slavery and forced labour (Article 4 of the Convention)
The prohibition of slavery and forced labour entails a procedural obligation to
carry out an effective investigation into situations of potential trafficking in human
beings.
The right to liberty and security (Article 5 of the Convention)
Procedural safeguards derived inter alia from the right to liberty and security
require that states must conduct effective investigations into credible claims
that a person has been deprived of his or her liberty and has not been seen since.
The right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 of the Convention)
States have a duty to effectively investigate credible claims of serious violations
of the rights enshrined in Article 8 of the Convention where the nature and
gravity of the alleged violation so requires, in accordance with the case-law of
the European Court of Human Rights.
2. Where an arguable claim is made, or the authorities have reasonable grounds
to suspect that a serious human rights violation has occurred, the authorities
must commence an investigation on their own initiative.
3. The fact that the victim wishes not to lodge an official complaint, later withdraws
such a complaint or decides to discontinue the proceedings does not
absolve the authorities from their obligation to carry out an effective investigation,
if there are reasons to believe that a serious human rights violation
has occurred.
4. A decision either to refuse to initiate or to terminate investigations may be
taken only by an independent and competent authority in accordance with
the criteria of an effective investigation as set out in Guideline VI. They
should be duly reasoned.
5. Such decisions must be subject to appropriate scrutiny and be generally
challengeable by means of a judicial process.
VI. Criteria for an effective investigation
In order for an investigation to be effective, it should respect the following essential
requirements:
Eradicating impunity for serious human rights violations – Guidelines
12
Adequacy
The investigation must be capable of leading to the identification and punishment
of those responsible. This does not create an obligation on states to ensure
that the investigation leads to a particular result, but the authorities must have
taken the reasonable steps available to them to secure the evidence concerning
the incident.
Thoroughness
The investigation should be comprehensive in scope and address all of the relevant
background circumstances, including any racist or other discriminatory
motivation. It should be capable of identifying any systematic failures that led
to the violation. This requires the taking of all reasonable steps to secure relevant
evidence such as identifying and interviewing the alleged victims, suspects
and eyewitnesses; examination of the scene of the alleged violation for
material evidence; and the gathering of forensic and medical evidence by competent
specialists. The evidence should be assessed in a thorough, consistent
and objective manner.
Impartiality and independence
Persons responsible for carrying out the investigation must be impartial and independent
from those implicated in the events. This requires that the authorities
which are implicated in the events can neither lead the taking of evidence nor
the preliminary investigation; in particular, the investigators cannot be part of
the same unit as the officials who are the subject of the investigation.
Promptness
The investigation must be commenced with sufficient promptness in order to
obtain the best possible amount and quality of evidence available. While there
may be obstacles or difficulties which prevent progress in an investigation in a
particular situation, a prompt response by the authorities may generally be regarded
as essential in maintaining public confidence in the maintenance of the
rule of law and in preventing any appearance of collusion in or tolerance of unlawful
acts. The investigation must be completed within a reasonable time and,
in all cases, be conducted with all necessary diligence.
Involvement of victims in the investigation
13
Public scrutiny
There should be a sufficient element of public scrutiny of the investigation or
its results to secure accountability, to maintain public confidence in the authorities’
adherence to the rule of law and to prevent any appearance of collusion in
or tolerance of unlawful acts. Public scrutiny should not endanger the aims of
the investigation and the fundamental rights of the parties.
VII. Involvement of victims in the investigation
1. States should ensure that victims may participate in the investigation and the
proceedings to the extent necessary to safeguard their legitimate interests
through relevant procedures under national law.
2. States have to ensure that victims may, to the extent necessary to safeguard
their legitimate interests, receive information regarding the follow-up and
outcome of their complaints, the progress of the investigation and the prosecution,
the execution of judicial decisions and all measures taken concerning
reparation for damage caused to the victims.
3. In cases of suspicious death or enforced disappearances, states must, to the
extent possible, provide information regarding the fate of the person concerned
to his or her family.
4. Victims may be given the opportunity to indicate that they do not wish to receive
such information.
5. Where participation in proceedings as parties is provided for in domestic
law, states should ensure that appropriate public legal assistance and advice
be provided to victims, as far as necessary for their participation in the proceedings.
6. States should ensure that, at all stages of the proceedings when necessary,
protection measures are put in place for the physical and psychological integrity
of victims and witnesses. States should ensure that victims and witnesses
are not intimidated, subject to reprisals or dissuaded by other means
from complaining or pursuing their complaints or participating in the proceedings.
Those measures may include particular means of investigation,
protection and assistance before, during or after the investigation process, in
order to guarantee the security and dignity of the persons concerned.
Eradicating impunity for serious human rights violations – Guidelines
14
VIII. Prosecutions
1. States have a duty to prosecute where the outcome of an investigation warrants
this. Although there is no right guaranteeing the prosecution or conviction
of a particular person, prosecuting authorities must, where the facts
warrant this, take the necessary steps to bring those who have committed serious
human rights violations to justice.
2. The essential requirements for an effective investigation as set out in Guidelines
V and VI also apply at the prosecution stage.
IX. Court proceedings
1. States should ensure the independence and impartiality of the judiciary in
accordance with the principle of separation of powers.
2. Safeguards should be put in place to ensure that lawyers, prosecutors and
judges do not fear reprisals for exercising their functions.
3. Proceedings should be concluded within a reasonable time. States should
ensure that the necessary means are at the disposal of the judicial and investigative
authorities to this end.
4. Persons accused of having committed serious human rights violations have
the right to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent
and impartial tribunal established by law.
X. Sentences
While respecting the independence of the courts, when serious human rights violations
have been proven, the imposition of a suitable penalty should follow.
The sentences which are handed out should be effective, proportionate and appropriate
to the offence committed.
XI. Implementation of domestic court judgments
Domestic court judgments should be fully and speedily executed by the competent
authorities.
International co-operation
15
XII. International co-operation
International co-operation plays a significant role in combating impunity. In order
to prevent and eradicate impunity, states must fulfil their obligations, notably
with regard to mutual legal assistance, prosecutions and extraditions, in a
manner consistent with respect for human rights, including the principle of
“non-refoulement”, and in good faith. To that end, states are encouraged to intensify
their co-operation beyond their existing obligations.
XIII. Accountability of subordinates
While the following of orders or instructions from a superior may have a bearing
on punishment, it may not serve as a circumstance precluding accountability
for serious human rights violations.
XIV. Restrictions and limitations
States should support, by all possible means, the investigation of serious human
rights violations and the prosecution of alleged perpetrators. Legitimate restrictions
and limitations on investigations and prosecutions should be restricted to
the minimum necessary to achieve their aim.
XV. Non-judicial mechanisms
States should also consider establishing non-judicial mechanisms such as parliamentary
or other public inquiries, ombudspersons, independent commissions
and mediation as useful complementary procedures to the domestic judicial
remedies guaranteed under the Convention.
XVI. Reparation
States should take all appropriate measures to establish accessible and effective
mechanisms which ensure that victims of serious human rights violations receive
prompt and adequate reparation for the harm suffered. This may include
measures of rehabilitation, compensation, satisfaction, restitution and guarantees
of non-repetition.
17
Eradicating impunity
for serious human rights violations
Reference texts
Preliminary note
This document was prepared by the Secretariat, in co-operation with the
Chairman of the Committee of Experts on Impunity (DH-I).
Aim of the guidelines
The guidelines concentrate on the accountability of perpetrators for serious
human rights violations. They are meant mainly as a guidance on the extensive
case-law the European Court of Human Rights has developed on the
fight against impunity, in particular by imposing on member states of the
Council of Europe the obligation to investigate serious human rights violations
and to hold their perpetrators to account, as well as to provide an effective
remedy for the victims of those violations.
Legal basis
The specific relevance of the European Convention on Human Rights (hereafter
“the Convention”) should be recalled. The Convention and the case-law
of the European Court of Human Rights (hereafter “the Court”) are a primary
source for defining guidelines on the fight against impunity. Other relevant
sources such as the reports of the Committee for the Prevention of Torture
(CPT) are also referred to. Where appropriate, existing international standEradicating
impunity for serious human rights violations – Reference texts
18
ards have also been taken into account, it being understood that only those
member states having ratified these texts are bound by the obligations and
the case-law arising from them, but that inspiration can be drawn from these
instruments in action to combat impunity.
In Assembly Resolution 1675 (2009) on “The state of human rights in Europe:
the need to eradicate impunity”, the Parliamentary Assembly insisted that:
1. […] all perpetrators of serious human rights violations must be held to account
for their actions.
In Assembly Recommendation 1876 (2009) on “The state of human rights in
Europe: the need to eradicate impunity”, the Parliamentary Assembly stated:
Preamble
The Committee of Ministers,
Recalling that those responsible for acts amounting to serious human
rights violations must be held to account for their actions;
Considering that a lack of accountability encourages repetition of crimes,
as perpetrators and others feel free to commit further offences without
fear of punishment;
Recalling that impunity for those responsible for acts amounting to serious
human rights violations inflicts additional suffering on victims;
Considering that impunity must be fought as a matter of justice for the
victims, as a deterrent to prevent new violations, and to uphold the rule
of law and public trust in the justice system, including where there is a
legacy of serious human rights violations;
Considering the need for states to co-operate at the international level in
order to put an end to impunity;
Reaffirming that it is an important goal of the Council of Europe to eradicate
impunity throughout the continent, as the Parliamentary Assembly
recalled in its Recommendation 1876 (2009) on “The state of human
rights in Europe: the need to eradicate impunity”, and that its action may
contribute to worldwide efforts against impunity;
Preamble
19
1. The Parliamentary Assembly, referring to its Resolution 1675 (2009) on “The
state of human rights in Europe: the need to eradicate impunity”, considers
the eradication of impunity for perpetrators, instigators and organisers of
serious human rights violations as a priority for Council of Europe action, as
a matter of individual justice, deterrence and upholding the rule of law.
In Assembly Resolution 1675 (2009) on “The state of human rights in Europe:
the need to eradicate impunity”, the Parliamentary Assembly stated that:
8. The full and speedy execution of the Court’s judgments in cases of impunity
is the key to fighting this scourge in Council of Europe member states.
8.1. When the Court has found a failure to investigate effectively, the execution
of the judgment cannot be limited to the payment of the pecuniary compensation
fixed by the Court. Proper investigations must still be carried out
and general measures taken to address the underlying causes of the violation.
[…]
8.3. The Assembly commends the Committee of Ministers for having consistently
noted that there is a continuing obligation to conduct effective investigations
inasmuch as procedural violations of Article 2 of the Convention
have been found by the Court. The application of these same rules to all
states, without double standards, is of particular importance.
8.4. The timely communication by the Court to the states concerned of applications
alleging a failure to investigate sends an important message to the
competent authorities giving them the opportunity to carry out investigative
acts before evidence is irretrievably lost.
Bearing in mind the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS No. 5,
hereinafter “the Convention”), in the light of the relevant case-law of the
European Court of Human Rights (the Court), as well as the standards of
the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment and other relevant standards established
within the framework of the Council of Europe;
Stressing that the full and speedy execution of the judgments of the Court
is a key factor in combating impunity;
Eradicating impunity for serious human rights violations – Reference texts
20
In the above-mentioned set of principles of 8 February 2005, the United Nations
Commission on Human Rights laid down as Principle 1 (“General obligations
of states to take effective action to combat impunity”):
Impunity arises from a failure by states to meet their obligations to investigate
violations; to take appropriate measures in respect of the perpetrators,
particularly in the area of justice, by ensuring that those suspected of criminal
responsibility are prosecuted, tried and duly punished; to provide victims
with effective remedies and to ensure that they receive reparation for
the injuries suffered; to ensure the inalienable right to know the truth about
violations; and to take other necessary steps to prevent a recurrence of violations.
In the preamble to the above-mentioned principles and guidelines of 16 December
2005, the United Nations General Assembly stated:
Recognizing that, in honouring the victims’ right to benefit from remedies
and reparation, the international community keeps faith with the plight of
victims, survivors and future human generations and reaffirms the international
legal principles of accountability, justice and the rule of law, […].
Bearing in mind the Set of Principles for the Protection and Promotion of
Human Rights through Action to Combat Impunity of the United Nations
Commission on Human Rights;
Recalling the importance of the right to an effective remedy for victims
of human rights violations, as contained in numerous international instruments
– notably in Article 13 of the Convention, Article 2 of the United
Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article
8 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights – and as reflected in the
United Nations General Assembly’s Principles and Guidelines on the
Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International
Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International
Humanitarian Law;
The need to combat impunity
21
Concerning the prevention of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment,
the CPT has defined the problem of impunity in the following manner:
The credibility of the prohibition of torture and other forms of ill-treatment
is undermined each time officials responsible for such offences are not held
to account for their actions. If the emergence of information indicative of
ill-treatment is not followed by a prompt and effective response, those
minded to ill-treat persons deprived of their liberty will quickly come to believe
– and with very good reason – that they can do so with impunity. All
efforts to promote human rights principles through strict recruitment poli-
Having regard to the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers Recommendation
Rec (2006) 8 to member states on assistance to crime victims
of 14 June 2006, and the United Nations General Assembly’s Declaration
of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power;
Bearing in mind the need to ensure that, when fighting impunity, the fundamental
rights of persons accused of serious human rights violations as
well as the rule of law are respected;
Adopts the following guidelines and invites member states to implement
them effectively and ensure that they are widely disseminated, and where
necessary translated, in particular among all authorities responsible for
the fight against impunity.
I. The need to combat impunity
1. These guidelines address the problem of impunity in respect of serious
human rights violations. Impunity arises where those responsible for
acts that amount to serious human rights violations are not brought to
account.
2. When it occurs, impunity is caused or facilitated notably by the lack
of diligent reaction of institutions or state agents to serious human
rights violations. In these circumstances, faults might be observed
within state institutions as well as at each stage of the judicial or administrative
proceedings.
3. States are to combat impunity as a matter of justice for the victims, as
a deterrent with respect to future human rights violations and in order
to uphold the rule of law and public trust in the justice system.
Eradicating impunity for serious human rights violations – Reference texts
22
cies and professional training will be sabotaged. In failing to take effective
action, the persons concerned – colleagues, senior managers, investigating
authorities – will ultimately contribute to the corrosion of the values which
constitute the very foundations of a democratic society.
Conversely, when officials who order, authorise, condone or perpetrate torture
and ill-treatment are brought to justice for their acts or omissions, an
unequivocal message is delivered that such conduct will not be tolerated.
Apart from its considerable deterrent value, this message will reassure the
general public that no one is above the law, not even those responsible for
upholding it. The knowledge that those responsible for ill-treatment have
been brought to justice will also have a beneficial effect for the victims.1
For the purposes of these guidelines, the term “jurisdiction” has the same
meaning as the term “jurisdiction” in Article 1 of the Convention.
The references to “states” in the guidelines are not intended to exclude their
application to any future Contracting Party to the Convention that is not a
state.
1. 14th General Report of the CPT’s activities, covering the period 1 August 2003 to 31 July
2004 [CPT/Inf (2004) 28], para. 25.
II. Scope of the guidelines
1. These guidelines deal with impunity for acts or omissions that amount
to serious human rights violations and which occur within the jurisdiction
of the state concerned.
2. They are addressed to states, and cover the acts or omissions of states,
including those carried out through their agents. They also cover
states’ obligations under the Convention to take positive action in respect
of non-state actors.
Scope of the guidelines
23
Serious human rights violations may include, for example:
• extra-judicial killings;
• negligence leading to serious risk to life or health;
• torture or inhuman or degrading treatment by security forces, prison
officers or other public officials;
• enforced disappearances;
• kidnapping;
• slavery, forced labour or human trafficking;
• rape or sexual abuse;
• serious physical assault, including in the context of domestic violence;
• the intentional destruction of homes or property.
Member states have obligations under the Convention to provide protection
by criminal law with regard to certain rights enshrined in the Convention:
Article 2 of the Convention
The Court notes that the first sentence of Article 2 §1 enjoins the state not
only to refrain from the intentional and unlawful taking of life, but also to
take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction
(see the L.C.B. v. the United Kingdom judgment of 9 June 1998, Reports of
Judgments and Decisions 1998-III, p. 1403, §36). It is common ground that
the state’s obligation in this respect extends beyond its primary duty to
secure the right to life by putting in place effective criminal-law provisions
to deter the commission of offences against the person backed up by lawenforcement
machinery for the prevention, suppression and sanctioning
3. For the purposes of these guidelines, “serious human rights violations”
concern those acts in respect of which states have an obligation
under the Convention, and in the light of the Court’s case-law, to enact
criminal law provisions. Such obligations arise in the context of the
right to life (Article 2 of the Convention), the prohibition of torture
and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Article 3 of the
Convention), the prohibition of forced labour and slavery (Article 4 of
the Convention) and with regard to certain aspects of the right to liberty
and security (Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Convention) and of the
right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 of the Convention).
Not all violations of these articles will necessarily reach this
threshold.
Eradicating impunity for serious human rights violations – Reference texts
24
of breaches of such provisions. It is thus accepted by those appearing
before the Court that Article 2 of the Convention may also imply in certain
well-defined circumstances a positive obligation on the authorities to take
preventive operational measures to protect an individual whose life is at
risk from the criminal acts of another individual. […]2
Article 3 of the Convention
For an investigation to be effective in practice it is a prerequisite that the
state has enacted criminal-law provisions penalising practices that are contrary
to Article 3 (compare, mutatis mutandis, M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98,
§§150, 153 and 166, ECHR 2003-XII; Nikolova and Velichkova, cited above,
§57; and Çamdereli, cited above, §38).3
With regard to Article 3 of the Convention, the United Nations Convention
against Torture and Other Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment
of 10 December 1984 provides in its Article 4:
1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its
criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to
an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.
2. Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties
which take into account their grave nature.
Article 4 of the Convention
In those circumstances, the Court considers that limiting compliance with
Article 4 of the Convention only to direct action by the state authorities
would be inconsistent with the international instruments specifically concerned
with this issue and would amount to rendering it ineffective. Accordingly,
it necessarily follows from this provision that states have positive
obligations, in the same way as under Article 3 for example, to adopt criminal-
law provisions which penalise the practices referred to in Article 4 and
to apply them in practice (see M.C. v. Bulgaria, cited above, §153).4
2. Osman v. the United Kingdom (no. 23452/94), judgment of 28 October 1998 [Grand
Chamber], para. 115.
3. Gäfgen v. Germany (no. 22978/05), judgment of 1 June 2010 [Grand Chamber], para. 117.
4. Siliadin v. France (no. 73316/01), judgment of 26 July 2005, para. 89.
Scope of the guidelines
25
Article 5 of the Convention
The Court emphasises in this respect that the unacknowledged detention
of an individual is a complete negation of these guarantees and a most
grave violation of Article 5. Having assumed control over that individual it
is incumbent on the authorities to account for his or her whereabouts. For
this reason, Article 5 must be seen as requiring the authorities to take effective
measures to safeguard against the risk of disappearance and to conduct
a prompt effective investigation into an arguable claim that a person
has been taken into custody and has not been seen since.5
Article 8 of the Convention
In the context of sexual abuse of mentally handicapped persons, the Court
has stated:
The Court finds that the protection afforded by the civil law in the case of
wrongdoing of the kind inflicted on Miss Y is insufficient. This is a case
where fundamental values and essential aspects of private life are at stake.
Effective deterrence is indispensable in this area and it can be achieved only
by criminal-law provisions; indeed, it is by such provisions that the matter is
normally regulated.6
Sexual abuse is unquestionably an abhorrent type of wrongdoing, with debilitating
effects on its victims. Children and other vulnerable individuals
are entitled to state protection, in the form of effective deterrence, from
such grave types of interference with essential aspects of their private lives
(see, mutatis mutandis, the above-mentioned X and Y judgment, p. 13, paragraph
27).7
In the context of rape, the Court has stated:
On that basis, the Court considers that states have a positive obligation inherent
in Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention to enact criminal-law provisions
effectively punishing rape and to apply them in practice through
effective investigation and prosecution.8
5. Kurt v. Turkey (no. 24276/94), judgment of 25 May 1998, para. 124.
6. X and Y v. the Netherlands (no. 8978/80), judgment of 26 March 1985, para. 27.
7. Stubbings and others v. the United Kingdom (nos. 22083/93 and 22095/93), judgment of
22 October 1996, para. 64.
8. M.C. v. Bulgaria (no. 39272/98), judgment of 4 December 2003, para. 153.
Eradicating impunity for serious human rights violations – Reference texts
26
In Assembly Resolution 1675 (2009) on “The state of human rights in Europe:
the need to eradicate impunity”, in which it insisted that all perpetrators of
serious human rights violations must be held to account for their actions, the
Parliamentary Assembly stated that:
2. This shall also apply to the instigators and organisers of such crimes, as recently
affirmed by the Assembly in Resolution 1645 (2009) with respect to
the Gongadze case.9
The definition is based on the definition of “victims” in the Council of Europe
Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers to member states on assistance
to crime victims (Rec (2006) 8, adopted on 14 June 2006):
1.1. Victim means a natural person who has suffered harm, including physical or
mental injury, emotional suffering or economic loss, caused by acts or
omissions that are in violation of the criminal law of a member state. The
term victim also includes, where appropriate, the immediate family or dependants
of the direct victim.
See also the definition of “victims” in principle 2 of the United Nations General
Assembly Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime
and Abuse of Power of 29 November 1985, as well as Guideline I on the Protection
of Victims of Terrorist Acts, adopted by the Committee of Ministers
on 2 March 2005.
4. In the guidelines, the term “perpetrators” refers to those responsible
for acts or omissions amounting to serious human rights violations.
9. The case referred to by the Parliamentary Assembly is the case of Gongadze v. Ukraine
(no. 34056/02), judgment of 8 November 2005.
5. In the guidelines, the term “victim” refers to a natural person who has
suffered harm, including physical or mental injury, emotional suffering
or economic loss, caused by a serious human rights violation. The
term “victim” may also include, where appropriate, the immediate
family or dependants of the direct victim. A person shall be considered
a victim regardless of whether the perpetrator of the violation is identified,
apprehended, prosecuted, or convicted and regardless of the familial
relationship between the perpetrator and the victim.
General measures for the prevention of impunity
27
The guidelines are not intended to resolve questions as to the relationship
between international human rights law (as reflected in these guidelines)
and other rules of international law.
6. These guidelines complement and do not replace other standards relating
to impunity. In particular, they neither replicate nor qualify the
obligations and responsibilities of states under international law, including
international humanitarian law and international criminal law,
nor are they intended to resolve questions as to the relationship between
international human rights law and other rules of international
law. Nothing in these guidelines prevents states from establishing or
maintaining stronger or broader measures to fight impunity.
III. General measures for the prevention of impunity
1. In order to avoid loopholes or legal gaps contributing to impunity,
• States should take all necessary measures to comply with their obligations
under the Convention to adopt criminal law provisions to effectively
punish serious human rights violations through adequate
penalties. These provisions should be applied by the appropriate executive
and judicial authorities in a coherent and non-discriminatory
manner.
• States should provide for the possibility of disciplinary proceedings
against state officials.
• In the same manner, states should provide a mechanism involving
criminal and disciplinary measures in order to sanction behaviour and
practice within state authorities which lead to impunity for serious human
rights violations.
2. States – including their officials and representatives – should publicly
condemn serious human rights violations.
Eradicating impunity for serious human rights violations – Reference texts
28
3. States should elaborate policies and take practical measures to prevent
and combat an institutional culture within their authorities which promotes
impunity. Such measures should include:
• promoting a culture of respect for human rights and systematic work
for the implementation of human rights at the national level;
• establishing or reinforcing appropriate training and control mechanisms;
• introducing anti-corruption policies;
• making the relevant authorities aware of their obligations, including
taking necessary measures, with regard to preventing impunity, and
establishing appropriate sanctions for the failure to uphold those obligations;
• conducting a policy of zero-tolerance of serious human rights violations;
• providing information to the public concerning violations and the authorities’
response to these violations;
• preserving archives and facilitating appropriate access to them
through applicable mechanisms.
4. States should establish and publicise clear procedures for reporting allegations
of serious human rights violations, both within their
authorities and for the general public. States should ensure that such
reports are received and effectively dealt with by the competent authorities.
5. States should take measures to encourage reporting by those who are
aware of serious human rights violations. They should, where appropriate,
take measures to ensure that those who report such violations
are protected from any harassment and reprisals.
6. States should establish plans and policies to counter discrimination
that may lead to serious human rights violations and to impunity for
such acts and their recurrence.
General measures for the prevention of impunity
29
In its 14th General Report the CPT stated:
26. Combating impunity must start at home, that is within the agency (police
or prison service, military authority, etc.) concerned. Too often the esprit de
corps leads to a willingness to stick together and help each other when allegations
of ill-treatment are made, to even cover up the illegal acts of colleagues.
Positive action is required, through training and by example, to
promote a culture where it is regarded as unprofessional – and unsafe
from a career path standpoint – to work and associate with colleagues who
have resort to ill-treatment, where it is considered as correct and professionally
rewarding to belong to a team which abstains from such acts.
An atmosphere must be created in which the right thing to do is to report
ill-treatment by colleagues; there must be a clear understanding that culpability
for ill-treatment extends beyond the actual perpetrators to anyone
who knows, or should know, that ill-treatment is occurring and fails to act
to prevent or report it. This implies the existence of a clear reporting line as
well as the adoption of whistle-blower protective measures.
27. In many states visited by the CPT, torture and acts such as ill-treatment in
the performance of a duty, coercion to obtain a statement, abuse of authority,
etc. constitute specific criminal offences which are prosecuted ex officio.
The CPT welcomes the existence of legal provisions of this kind.
Nevertheless, the CPT has found that, in certain countries, prosecutorial authorities
have considerable discretion with regard to the opening of a preliminary
investigation when information related to possible ill-treatment of
persons deprived of their liberty comes to light. In the Committee’s view,
even in the absence of a formal complaint, such authorities should be
under a legal obligation to undertake an investigation whenever they
receive credible information, from any source, that ill-treatment of persons
deprived of their liberty may have occurred. In this connection, the legal
framework for accountability will be strengthened if public officials (police
officers, prison directors, etc.) are formally required to notify the relevant au-
7. States should also establish mechanisms to ensure the integrity and accountability
of their agents. States should remove from office individuals
who have been found, by a competent authority, to be responsible
for serious human rights violations or for furthering or tolerating impunity,
or adopt other appropriate disciplinary measures. States should
notably develop and institutionalise codes of conduct.
Eradicating impunity for serious human rights violations – Reference texts
30
thorities immediately whenever they become aware of any information indicative
of ill-treatment.
28. The existence of a suitable legal framework is not of itself sufficient to guarantee
that appropriate action will be taken in respect of cases of possible
ill-treatment. Due attention must be given to sensitising the relevant authorities
to the important obligations which are incumbent upon them.
[…]
37. Disciplinary proceedings provide an additional type of redress against illtreatment,
and may take place in parallel to criminal proceedings. Disciplinary
culpability of the officials concerned should be systematically examined,
irrespective of whether the misconduct in question is found to
constitute a criminal offence. The CPT has recommended a number of procedural
safeguards to be followed in this context; for example, adjudication
panels for police disciplinary proceedings should include at least one independent
member.
38. Inquiries into possible disciplinary offences by public officials may be performed
by a separate internal investigations department within the structures
of the agencies concerned. Nevertheless, the CPT strongly
encourages the creation of a fully-fledged independent investigation body.
Such a body should have the power to direct that disciplinary proceedings
be instigated.
Regardless of the formal structure of the investigation agency, the CPT considers
that its functions should be properly publicised. Apart from the possibility
for persons to lodge complaints directly with the agency, it should
be mandatory for public authorities such as the police to register all representations
which could constitute a complaint; to this end, appropriate
forms should be introduced for acknowledging receipt of a complaint and
confirming that the matter will be pursued.
If, in a given case, it is found that the conduct of the officials concerned may
be criminal in nature, the investigation agency should always notify directly
– without delay – the competent prosecutorial authorities.
39. Great care should be taken to ensure that persons who may have been the
victims of ill-treatment by public officials are not dissuaded from lodging a
complaint. For example, the potential negative effects of a possibility for
such officials to bring proceedings for defamation against a person who
wrongly accuses them of ill-treatment should be kept under review. The
balance between competing legitimate interests must be evenly estabGeneral
measures for the prevention of impunity
31
lished. Reference should also be made in this context to certain points already
made in paragraph 28.
40. Any evidence of ill-treatment by public officials which emerges during civil
proceedings also merits close scrutiny. For example, in cases in which
there have been successful claims for damages or out-of-court settlements
on grounds including assault by police officers, the CPT has recommended
that an independent review be carried out. Such a review should seek to
identify whether, having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations
against the police officers concerned, the question of criminal and/or disciplinary
proceedings should be (re)considered.
[…]
42. Finally, no one must be left in any doubt concerning the commitment of
the state authorities to combating impunity. This will underpin the action
being taken at all other levels. When necessary, those authorities should
not hesitate to deliver, through a formal statement at the highest political
level, the clear message that there must be “zero tolerance” of torture and
other forms of ill-treatment.”10
With regard to the training of law-enforcement personnel, the CPT stated in
its 2nd General Report:
59. Finally, the CPT wishes to emphasise the great importance it attaches to the
training of law-enforcement personnel (which should include education
on human rights matters – cf. also Article 10 of the United Nations Convention
against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment). There is arguably no better guarantee against the ill-treatment
of a person deprived of his liberty than a properly trained police or
prison officer. Skilled officers will be able to carry out successfully their
duties without having recourse to ill-treatment and to cope with the presence
of fundamental safeguards for detainees and prisoners.
60. In this connection, the CPT believes that aptitude for interpersonal communication
should be a major factor in the process of recruiting law enforcement
personnel and that, during training, considerable emphasis should
be placed on developing interpersonal communication skills, based on respect
for human dignity. The possession of such skills will often enable a
police or prison officer to defuse a situation which could otherwise turn
into violence, and more generally, will lead to a lowering of tension, and
10. 14th General Report of the CPT’s activities, covering the period 1 August 2003 to 31 July
2004 [CPT/Inf (2004) 28].
Eradicating impunity for serious human rights violations – Reference texts
32
raising of the quality of life, in police and prison establishments, to the benefit
of all concerned.11
When a person is injured during custody or detention, the Court has established
certain safeguards for the protection of the person concerned:
The Court underlines that a state is responsible for each person in detention,
as the latter, being in the hands of police officers, is in a vulnerable situation
and the authorities have the obligation to protect that person. From
the very beginning of the deprivation of liberty, a strict application of the
fundamental guarantees such as the right to be examined by a medical
doctor of one’s choice in addition to an examination by a medical doctor
summoned by the police authorities, as well as access to a lawyer and a
family member in addition to a prompt judicial intervention can effectively
lead to the detection and prevention of ill-treatment which, like in the
11. 2nd General Report of the CPT’s activities, covering the period 1 January to 31 December
1991 [CPT/Inf (92) 3].
IV. Safeguards to protect persons deprived of their
liberty from serious human rights violations
1. States must provide adequate guarantees to persons deprived of their
liberty by a public authority, in order to prevent any unlawful detention
or ill-treatment, and ensure that any unlawful detention or illtreatment
does not go unpunished. In particular, persons deprived of
their liberty should be provided with the following guarantees:
• the right to inform, or to have informed, a third party of his or her
choice of their deprivation of liberty, their location and of any transfers;
• the right to have access to a lawyer;
• the right to have access to a medical doctor.
Persons deprived of their liberty should be expressly informed without
delay about all their rights, including those listed above. Any possibility
for the authorities to delay the exercise of one of these rights, in
order to protect the interests of justice or public order, should be clearly
defined by law, and its application should be strictly limited in time
and subject to appropriate procedural safeguards.
Safeguards to protect persons deprived of their liberty
33
present case, detained persons risk to be subjected to, notably for the extortion
of confessions.
The Court recalls in this respect that where a person is injured while being
in police custody, even though that person is entirely under the control of
police officers, strong presumptions of fact will arise in respect of any injury
that occurs during that period (see the judgment of Salman v. Turkey [GC],
no. 21986/93, §100, ECHR 2000-VII). It is incumbent on the state to give a
plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused and to provide evidence
which establishes facts casting doubt on the allegations of the victim,
notably if those facts are supported by medical reports (see, among
others, the judgments of Selmouni cited above, §87, and Altay v. Turkey, no.
22279/93, §50, 22 May 2001).12
With regard to police custody, the CPT stated in its 2nd General Report:
36. The CPT attaches particular importance to three rights for persons detained
by the police: the right of the person concerned to have the fact of his detention
notified to a third party of his choice (family member, friend, consulate),
the right of access to a lawyer, and the right to request a medical
examination by a doctor of his choice (in addition to any medical examination
carried out by a doctor called by the police authorities). They are, in the
CPT’s opinion, three fundamental safeguards against the ill-treatment of
detained persons which should apply as from the very outset of deprivation
of liberty, regardless of how it may be described under the legal system
concerned (apprehension, arrest, etc.).
37. Persons taken into police custody should be expressly informed without
delay of all their rights, including those referred to in paragraph 36. Further,
any possibilities offered to the authorities to delay the exercise of one or
other of the latter rights in order to protect the interests of justice should be
clearly defined and their application strictly limited in time. As regards more
particularly the rights of access to a lawyer and to request a medical examination
by a doctor other than one called by the police, systems whereby,
exceptionally, lawyers and doctors can be chosen from pre-established lists
drawn up in agreement with the relevant professional organisations should
remove any need to delay the exercise of these rights.
38. Access to a lawyer for persons in police custody should include the right to
contact and to be visited by the lawyer (in both cases under conditions
12. Algür v. Turkey (no. 32574/96), judgment of 22 October 2002, para. 44 (only available in
French; unofficial translation provided by the Secretariat).
Eradicating impunity for serious human rights violations – Reference texts
34
guaranteeing the confidentiality of their discussions) as well as, in principle,
the right for the person concerned to have the lawyer present during interrogation.
As regards the medical examination of persons in police custody, all such
examinations should be conducted out of the hearing, and preferably out
of the sight, of police officers. Further, the results of every examination as
well as relevant statements by the detainee and the doctor’s conclusions
should be formally recorded by the doctor and made available to the detainee
and his lawyer.13
In this regard, it should be recalled that the Committee of Ministers, in its
reply to Recommendation 1257 (1995) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the
Council of Europe, already invited the authorities of member states to
comply with the guidelines of the CPT presented above (paras. 36-38).
In its 12th report the CPT underlines once again the importance of these fundamental
guarantees and further clarifies how they can be applied in practice:
Concerning access to a lawyer
41. […] The CPT has repeatedly stressed that, in its experience, the period immediately
following deprivation of liberty is when the risk of intimidation and
physical ill-treatment is greatest. Consequently, the possibility for persons
taken into police custody to have access to a lawyer during that period is a
fundamental safeguard against ill-treatment. The existence of that possibility
will have a dissuasive effect upon those minded to ill treat detained persons;
further, a lawyer is well placed to take appropriate action if ill-treatment actually
occurs. The CPT recognises that in order to protect the legitimate interests
of the police investigation, it may exceptionally be necessary to delay for
a certain period a detained person’s access to a lawyer of his choice. However,
this should not result in the right of access to a lawyer being totally denied
during the period in question. In such cases, access to another independent
lawyer should be arranged.
The right of access to a lawyer must include the right to talk to him in private.
The person concerned should also, in principle, be entitled to have a
lawyer present during any interrogation conducted by the police. Naturally,
this should not prevent the police from questioning a detained person on
13. 2nd General Report of the CPT’s activities, covering the period 1 January to 31 December
1991 [CPT/Inf (1992) 3].
Safeguards to protect persons deprived of their liberty
35
urgent matters, even in the absence of a lawyer (who may not be immediately
available), nor rule out the replacement of a lawyer who impedes the
proper conduct of an interrogation.
The CPT has also emphasised that the right of access to a lawyer should be
enjoyed not only by criminal suspects but also by anyone who is under a
legal obligation to attend – and stay at – a police establishment, e.g. as a
“witness”.
Further, for the right of access to a lawyer to be fully effective in practice, appropriate
provision should be made for persons who are not in a position
to pay for a lawyer.
Concerning access to a medical doctor
42. Persons in police custody should have a formally recognised right of access
to a doctor. In other words, a doctor should always be called without delay
if a person requests a medical examination; police officers should not seek
to filter such requests. Further, the right of access to a doctor should include
the right of a person in custody to be examined, if the person concerned so
wishes, by a doctor of his/her own choice (in addition to any medical examination
carried out by a doctor called by the police).
All medical examinations of persons in police custody must be conducted
out of the hearing of law-enforcement officials and, unless the doctor concerned
requests otherwise in a particular case, out of the sight of such officials.
It is also important that persons who are released from police custody without
being brought before a judge have the right to directly request a medical
examination/certificate from a recognised forensic doctor.
In its 2nd General Report the CPT stresses the importance of access to a
medical doctor in the context of using force within prisons:
Prison staff will on occasion have to use force to control violent prisoners
and, exceptionally, may even need to resort to instruments of physical restraint.
These are clearly high risk situations insofar as the possible illtreatment
of prisoners is concerned, and as such call for specific safeguards.
A prisoner against whom any means of force have been used should have
the right to be immediately examined and, if necessary, treated by a medical
doctor. This examination should be conducted out of the hearing and
preferably out of the sight of non-medical staff, and the results of the examination
(including any relevant statements by the prisoner and the doctor’s
Eradicating impunity for serious human rights violations – Reference texts
36
conclusions) should be formally recorded and made available to the prisoner.
In those rare cases when resort to instruments of physical restraint is
required, the prisoner concerned should be kept under constant and adequate
supervision. Further, instruments of restraint should be removed at
the earliest possible opportunity; they should never be applied, or their application
prolonged, as a punishment. Finally, a record should be kept of
every instance of the use of force against prisoners.14
Concerning the right to inform a third party
43. A detained person’s right to have the fact of his/her detention notified
to a third party should in principle be guaranteed from the very outset of
police custody. Of course, the CPT recognises that the exercise of this right
might have to be made subject to certain exceptions, in order to protect
the legitimate interests of the police investigation. However, such exceptions
should be clearly defined and strictly limited in time, and resort to
them should be accompanied by appropriate safeguards (e.g. any delay in
notification of custody to be recorded in writing with the reasons therefor,
and to require the approval of a senior police officer unconnected with the
case or a prosecutor).
44. Rights for persons deprived of their liberty will be of little value if the persons
concerned are unaware of their existence. Consequently, it is imperative
that persons taken into police custody are expressly informed of
their rights without delay and in a language which they understand. In
order to ensure that this is done, a form setting out those rights in a
straightforward manner should be systematically given to persons detained
by the police at the very outset of their custody. Further, the persons
concerned should be asked to sign a statement attesting that they have
been informed of their rights.
Concerning the prevention of violence within penal institutions
61. Any signs of violence observed when a prisoner is medically screened on
his admission to the establishment should be fully recorded, together with
any relevant statements by the prisoner and the doctor’s conclusions. Further,
this information should be made available to the prisoner.15
14. 2nd General Report of the CPT’s activities, covering the period 1 January to 31 December
1991 [CPT/Inf (1992) 3], para. 53.
Safeguards to protect persons deprived of their liberty
37
In its 12th General Report the CPT stresses the importance of judicial control
in the framework of police custody:
45. The CPT has stressed on several occasions the role of judicial and prosecuting
authorities as regards combating ill-treatment by the police.
For example, all persons detained by the police whom it is proposed to
remand to prison should be physically brought before the judge who must
decide that issue; there are still certain countries visited by the CPT where
this does not occur. Bringing the person before the judge will provide a
timely opportunity for a criminal suspect who has been ill-treated to lodge
a complaint. Further, even in the absence of an express complaint, the
judge will be able to take action in good time if there are other indications
of ill-treatment (e.g. visible injuries; a person’s general appearance or demeanour).
Naturally, the judge must take appropriate steps when there are indications
that ill-treatment by the police may have occurred. In this regard, whenever
criminal suspects brought before a judge at the end of police custody
allege ill-treatment, the judge should record the allegations in writing,
order immediately a forensic medical examination and take the necessary
steps to ensure that the allegations are properly investigated. Such an approach
should be followed whether or not the person concerned bears visible
external injuries. Further, even in the absence of an express allegation
of ill-treatment, the judge should request a forensic medical examination
whenever there are other grounds to believe that a person brought before
him could have been the victim of ill-treatment.
The diligent examination by judicial and other relevant authorities of all complaints
of ill-treatment by law enforcement officials and, where appropriate,
the imposition of a suitable penalty will have a strong deterrent effect. Conversely,
if those authorities do not take effective action upon complaints referred
to them, law enforcement officials minded to ill-treat persons in their
custody will quickly come to believe that they can do so with impunity.16
15. 3rd General Report of the CPT’s activities, covering the period 1 January to 31 December
1992 [CPT/Inf (93) 12].
16. 12th General Report of the CPT’s activities, covering the period 1 January to 31 December
2001 [CPT/Inf (2002) 15].
Eradicating impunity for serious human rights violations – Reference texts
38
According to the case-law of the Court, the above-mentioned data must be
kept in order for the detention to be in conformity with Article 5 §1 of the
Convention:
The recording of accurate holding data concerning the date, time and location
of detainees, as well as the grounds for the detention and the name
of the persons effecting it, is necessary for the detention of an individual to
be compatible with the requirements of lawfulness for the purposes of Article
5 §1. The lack of records of this applicant discloses a serious failing,
which is aggravated by the Commission’s findings as to the general unreliability
and inaccuracy of the records in question. The Court also shares the
Commission’s concerns with regard to the practices applied in the registration
of holding data by the gendarme witnesses who appeared before the
Commission’s delegates – the fact that it is not recorded when a person is
held elsewhere than the officially designated custody area or when a
person is removed from a detention area for any purpose or held in transit.
It finds unacceptable the failure to keep records which enable the location
of a detainee to be established at a particular time.17
The Court has stated that deficiencies in the practice of recording custody
may amount to a violation of Article 5 §1 of the Convention:
Further, certain serious deficiencies have been noted in the practice of recording
custody in gendarme stations […]. The first established deficiency
is not allowed by domestic law namely, the gendarme practice of detaining
persons for various reasons in their stations without being entered in the
2. In addition to the rights listed above, persons deprived of their liberty
are entitled to take court proceedings through which the lawfulness of
their detention shall be speedily decided and release ordered if that detention
is not lawful. Persons arrested or detained in relation to the
commission of an offence must be brought promptly before a judge,
and they have the right to receive a trial within a reasonable time or to
be released pending trial, in accordance with the Court’s case-law.
3. States should take effective measures to safeguard against the risk of
serious human rights violations by the keeping of records concerning
the date, time and location of persons deprived of their liberty, as well
as other relevant information concerning the deprivation of liberty.
17. Çakici v. Turkey (no. 23657/94), judgment of 8 July 1999 [Grand Chamber], para. 105.
Safeguards to protect persons deprived of their liberty
39
custody records. The second and third failing further underline the unreliability
of custody records as those records will not show whether one is apprehended
by military forces and may not show the date of release from
the gendarme station. These three deficiencies attest to the absence of effective
measures to safeguard against the risk of disappearance of individuals
in detention.18
Moreover, in its 2nd General Report the CPT states:
The CPT considers that the fundamental safeguards granted to persons in
police custody would be reinforced (and the work of police officers quite
possibly facilitated) if a single and comprehensive custody record were to
exist for each person detained, on which would be recorded all aspects of
his custody and action taken regarding them (when deprived of liberty and
reasons for that measure; when told of rights; signs of injury, mental illness,
etc; when next of kin/consulate and lawyer contacted and when visited by
them; when offered food; when interrogated; when transferred or released,
etc.). For various matters (for example, items in the person’s possession, the
fact of being told of one’s rights and of invoking or waiving them), the signature
of the detainee should be obtained and, if necessary, the absence of
a signature explained. Further, the detainee’s lawyer should have access to
such a custody record.19
In its 12th General Report the CPT recognised that audio and video recording
of interviews by the authorities of persons deprived of their liberty is an important
safeguard against the ill-treatment of detainees:
The electronic (i.e. audio and/or video) recording of police interviews
represents an important additional safeguard against the ill-treatment of
detainees. The CPT is pleased to note that the introduction of such systems
is under consideration in an increasing number of countries. Such a facility
can provide a complete and authentic record of the interview process,
thereby greatly facilitating the investigation of any allegations of ill-treatment.
This is in the interest both of persons who have been ill-treated by
the police and of police officers confronted with unfounded allegations
that they have engaged in physical ill-treatment or psychological pressure.
Electronic recording of police interviews also reduces the opportunity for
defendants to later falsely deny that they have made certain admissions.20
18. Orhan v. Turkey (no. 25656/94), judgment of 18 June 2002, para. 372.
19. 2nd General Report of the CPT’s activities, covering the period 1 January to 31 December
1991 [CPT/Inf (92) 30], para. 40.
Eradicating impunity for serious human rights violations – Reference texts
40
With regard to the practice of blindfolding, the CPT stated in its 12th General
Report:
In certain countries, the CPT has encountered the practice of blindfolding
persons in police custody, in particular during periods of questioning. CPT
delegations have received various – and often contradictory – explanations
from police officers as regards the purpose of this practice. From the information
gathered over the years, it is clear to the CPT that in many if not
most cases, persons are blindfolded in order to prevent them from being
able to identify law enforcement officials who inflict ill-treatment upon
them. Even in cases when no physical ill-treatment occurs, to blindfold a
person in custody – and in particular someone undergoing questioning –
is a form of oppressive conduct, the effect of which on the person concerned
will frequently amount to psychological ill-treatment. The CPT recommends
that the blindfolding of persons who are in police custody be
expressly prohibited.21
20. 12th General Report of the CPT’s activities, covering the period 1 January to 31 December
2001 [CPT/Inf (2002) 15], para. 36.
4. States must ensure that officials carrying out arrests or interrogations
or using force can be identified in any subsequent criminal or disciplinary
investigations or proceedings.
21. 12th General Report of the CPT’s activities, covering the period 1 January to 31 December
2001, [CPT/Inf (2002) 15], para. 38.
V. The duty to investigate
1. Combating impunity requires that there be an effective investigation
in cases of serious human rights violations. This duty has an absolute
character.
The duty to investigate
41
The obligation to carry out an effective investigation was first developed by
the Court within the framework of Article 2 of the Convention and originated
in the case of McCann and others v. the United Kingdom:
The obligation to protect the right to life under this provision, read in conjunction
with the State’s general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to
“secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined
in [the] Convention”, requires by implication that there should be
some form of effective official investigation when individuals have been
killed as a result of the use of force by, inter alios, agents of the State.22
The Court has stated that the duty to investigate applies also in relation to
killings by private actors:
The Court finds, first of all, that a procedural obligation arose to investigate
the circumstances of the death of Christopher Edwards. He was a prisoner
under the care and responsibility of the authorities when he died from acts
of violence of another prisoner and in this situation it is irrelevant whether
State agents were involved by acts or omissions in the events leading to his
death. The State was under an obligation to initiate and carry out an investigation
which fulfilled the requirements set out above.23
The Court found that the political context at the time of the respective incidents
did not relieve the authorities of their obligation to conduct an effective
investigation:
However, neither the prevalence of violent armed clashes nor the high incidence
of fatalities can displace the obligation under Article 2 to ensure
that an effective, independent investigation is conducted into deaths aris-
The right to life (Article 2 of the Convention)
The obligation to protect the right to life requires inter alia that there
should be an effective investigation when individuals have been killed,
whether by state agents or private persons, and in all cases of suspicious
death. This duty also arises in situations in which it is uncertain whether
or not the victim has died, and there is reason to believe the circumstances
are suspicious, such as in case of enforced disappearances.
22. McCann and others v. the United Kingdom (no. 18984/91), judgment of 27 September
1995 [Grand Chamber], para. 161.
23. Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom (no. 46477/99), judgment of 14 March
2002, para. 74.
Eradicating impunity for serious human rights violations – Reference texts
42
ing out of clashes involving the security forces, more so in cases such as the
present where the circumstances are in many respects unclear.24
In the context of violent armed clashes, the Court also mentioned the danger
of a growing climate of impunity:
Nonetheless, circumstances of that nature cannot relieve the authorities of
their obligations under Article 2 to carry out an investigation, as otherwise
that would exacerbate still further the climate of impunity and insecurity in
the region and thus create a vicious circle (see mutatis mutandis, the Kaya
judgment cited above, p. 326, §91).25
See also Articles 2 and 3 of the United Nations International Convention for
the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance of 20 December
2006:
Article 2
For the purposes of this Convention, “enforced disappearance” is considered
to be the arrest, detention, abduction or any other form of deprivation
of liberty by agents of the state or by persons or groups of persons acting
with the authorisation, support or acquiescence of the state, followed by a
refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the
fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person, which place such a person
outside the protection of the law.
Article 3
Each State Party shall take appropriate measures to investigate acts defined
in article 2 committed by persons or groups of persons acting without the
authorisation, support or acquiescence of the State and to bring those responsible
to justice.
See also the “Principles on the effective prevention and investigation of
extra-legal, arbitrary and summary executions” (paras. 9-17), recommended
by Economic and Social Council resolution 1989/65 of 24 May 1989.
The obligation to investigate racist attitudes
The Court has held that the authorities’ duty to investigate the existence of
a possible link between racist attitudes and an act of violence is an aspect of
24. Kaya v. Turkey (no. 158/96), judgment of 19 February 1998, para. 91.
25. Yaşa v. Turkey (no. 22495/93), judgment of 2 September 1998, para. 104.
The duty to investigate
43
their procedural obligations arising under Articles 2 and 14 of the Convention:
The Court considers that when investigating violent incidents and, in particular,
deaths at the hands of state agents, state authorities have the additional
duty to take all reasonable steps to unmask any racist motive and to
establish whether or not ethnic hatred or prejudice may have played a role
in the events. Failing to do so and treating racially induced violence and
brutality on an equal footing with cases that have no racist overtones
would be to turn a blind eye to the specific nature of acts that are particularly
destructive of fundamental rights. A failure to make a distinction in the
way in which situations that are essentially different are handled may constitute
unjustified treatment irreconcilable with Article 14 of the Convention
(see, mutatis mutandis, Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, §44,
ECHR 2000-IV). In order to maintain public confidence in their law enforcement
machinery, contracting states must ensure that in the investigation of
incidents involving the use of force a distinction is made both in their legal
systems and in practice between cases of excessive use of force and of
racist killing.
Admittedly, proving racial motivation will often be extremely difficult in
practice. The respondent state’s obligation to investigate possible racist
overtones to a violent act is an obligation to use best endeavours and not
absolute (see, mutatis mutandis, Shanaghan v. the United Kingdom, no.
37715/97, §90, ECHR 2001-III, setting out the same standard with regard to
the general obligation to investigate). The authorities must do what is reasonable
in the circumstances to collect and secure the evidence, explore all
practical means of discovering the truth and deliver fully reasoned, impartial
and objective decisions, without omitting suspicious facts that may be
indicative of a racially induced violence.26
26. Nachova and others v. Bulgaria (nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98), judgment of 26 February
2004, paras. 158-159. As regards the responsibilities under Article 14 of the Convention
(read in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention), see Nachova and others v. Bulgaria
(nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98), judgment of 6 July 2005 [Grand Chamber], para. 161.
Eradicating impunity for serious human rights violations – Reference texts
44
Soon after it had developed the obligation to carry out an effective investigation
under Article 2 of the Convention, the Court also followed this approach
with regard to Article 3 of the Convention:
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, where an individual raises
an arguable claim that he has been seriously ill-treated by the police or
other such agents of the state unlawfully and in breach of Article 3, that
provision, read in conjunction with the state’s general duty under Article 1
of the Convention to “secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights
and freedoms defined in … [the] Convention”, requires by implication that
there should be an effective official investigation. This investigation, as with
that under Article 2, should be capable of leading to the identification and
punishment of those responsible (see, in relation to Article 2 of the Convention,
the McCann and others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 27 September
1995, Series A no. 324, p. 49, §161, the Kaya v. Turkey judgment of
19 February 1998, Reports 1998-I, p. 324, §86, and the Yaşa v. Turkey judgment
of 2 September 1998, Reports 1998-VI, p. 2438, §98). If this were not
the case, the general legal prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading
treatment and punishment, despite its fundamental importance (see
paragraph 93 above), would be ineffective in practice and it would be possible
in some cases for agents of the state to abuse the rights of those
within their control with virtual impunity.27
The Court gave as reasoning for the positive obligation to effectively investigate
alleged cases of serious ill treatment:
In cases of wilful ill-treatment the breach of Article 3 cannot be remedied
only by an award of compensation to the victim. This is so because, if the
authorities could confine their reaction to incidents of wilful ill-treatment
by state agents to the mere payment of compensation, while not doing
enough to prosecute and punish those responsible, it would be possible in
The prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment (Article 3 of the Convention)
States are under a procedural obligation arising under Article 3 of the
Convention to carry out an effective investigation into credible claims
that a person has been seriously ill-treated, or when the authorities have
reasonable grounds to suspect that such treatment has occurred.
27. Assenov and others v. Bulgaria (no. 24760/94), judgment of 28 October 1998, para. 102.
The duty to investigate
45
some cases for agents of the State to abuse the rights of those within their
control with virtual impunity, and the general legal prohibition of torture
and inhuman and degrading treatment, despite its fundamental importance,
would be ineffective in practice (see, among many other authorities,
Krastanov, cited above, §60; Çamdereli, cited above, §29; and Vladimir
Romanov, cited above, §78).28
The Court recognised a procedural obligation to investigate under Article 4
of the Convention with regard to trafficking in human beings:
Like Articles 2 and 3, Article 4 also entails a procedural obligation to investigate
situations of potential trafficking.29
The duty to investigate situations of trafficking in human beings is further
elaborated in Chapter V (“Investigation, prosecution and procedural law”) of
the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human
Beings of 16 May 2005.
With regard to enforced disappearances, Article 5 of the Convention puts a
procedural obligation on states to conduct an effective investigation:
The Court emphasises in this respect that the unacknowledged detention
of an individual is a complete negation of these guarantees and a most
grave violation of Article 5. Having assumed control over that individual it
28. Gäfgen v. Germany (no. 22978/05), judgment of 1 June 2010 [Grand Chamber], para. 119.
The prohibition of slavery and forced labour (Article 4 of the
Convention)
The prohibition of slavery and forced labour entails a procedural obligation
to carry out an effective investigation into situations of potential trafficking
in human beings.
29. Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia (no. 25965/04), judgment of 7 January 2010, para. 288.
The right to liberty and security (Article 5 of the Convention)
Procedural safeguards derived inter alia from the right to liberty and security
require that states must conduct effective investigations into credible
claims that a person has been deprived of his or her liberty and has
not been seen since.
Eradicating impunity for serious human rights violations – Reference texts
46
is incumbent on the authorities to account for his or her whereabouts. For
this reason, Article 5 must be seen as requiring the authorities to take effective
measures to safeguard against the risk of disappearance and to conduct
a prompt effective investigation into an arguable claim that a person
has been taken into custody and has not been seen since.30
The Court has found that the right to an effective remedy (Article 13 of the
Convention) may require states to conduct effective investigations with
regard to the right to a private life (Article 8 of the Convention):
The Court reiterates that Article 13 guarantees the availability at the national
level of a remedy to enforce the substance of the Convention rights and
freedoms in whatever form they might happen to be secured in the domestic
legal order. The effect of this article is thus to require the provision
of a domestic remedy allowing the “competent national authority” both to
deal with the substance of the relevant Convention complaint and to grant
appropriate relief, although Contracting States are afforded some discretion
as to the manner in which they conform to their obligations under this
provision. The remedy must be “effective” in practice as well as in law, in particular
in the sense that its exercise must not be unjustifiably hindered by
the acts or omissions of the authorities of the respondent state (see the
Aksoy judgment cited above, p. 2286, §95, and the above-mentioned Aydın
judgment, pp. 1895-96, §103).
Furthermore, the nature and gravity of the interference complained of
under Article 8 of the Convention in the instant case has implications for
Article 13. The provision imposes, without prejudice to any other remedy
available under the domestic system, an obligation on the respondent
state to carry out a thorough and effective investigation of allegations
30. Kurt v. Turkey (no. 24276/94), judgment of 25 May 1998, para. 124; Orhan v. Turkey (no.
25656/94), judgment of 18 June 2002, para. 369.
The right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 of the
Convention)
States have a duty to effectively investigate credible claims of serious violations
of the rights enshrined in Article 8 of the Convention where the
nature and gravity of the alleged violation so requires, in accordance with
the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights.
The duty to investigate
47
brought to its attention of deliberate destruction by its agents of the homes
and possessions of individuals.
Accordingly, where an individual has an arguable claim that his or her
home and possessions have been purposely destroyed by agents of the
State, the notion of an ‘effective remedy’ entails, in addition to the payment
of compensation where appropriate, a thorough and effective investigation
capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible
and including effective access for the complainant to the
investigative procedure.31
Concerning rape, the Court has stated:
On that basis, the Court considers that states have a positive obligation inherent
in Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention to enact criminal law provisions
effectively punishing rape and to apply them in practice through effective
investigation and prosecution.32
The obligation to commence an investigation motu proprio by the state
authorities has been established by the Court:
The essential purpose of such investigation is to secure the effective implementation
of the domestic laws which protect the right to life and, in those
cases involving State agents or bodies, to ensure their accountability for
deaths occurring under their responsibility. What form of investigation will
achieve those purposes may vary in different circumstances. However,
whatever mode is employed, the authorities must act of their own motion,
once the matter has come to their attention.33
The investigation must also be initiated with promptness (see below, Guideline
VI).
31. Mentes and others v. Turkey (no. 23186/94), judgment of 28 November 1997, para. 89.
32. M.C. v. Bulgaria (no. 39272/98), judgment of 4 December 2003, para. 153.
2. Where an arguable claim is made, or the authorities have reasonable
grounds to suspect that a serious human rights violation has occurred,
the authorities must commence an investigation on their own initiative.
33. Kelly and others v. the United Kingdom (no. 30054/96), judgment of 4 May 2001, para. 94.
Eradicating impunity for serious human rights violations – Reference texts
48
The Court has stated that investigations must be conducted regardless of
the existence of a formal complaint by the victim:
However, whatever mode is employed, the authorities must act of their
own motion once the matter has come to their attention. They cannot
leave it to the initiative of the next of kin either to lodge a formal complaint
or to take responsibility for the conduct of any investigative procedures
(see, mutatis mutandis, İlhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, §63, ECHR 2000-VII,
and Finucane v. the United Kingdom, no. 29178/95, §67, ECHR 2003-VIII).34
This applies even in the event that the victim later withdraws his or her complaint:
[…] The Court reiterates in this connection that, once the situation has
been brought to their attention, the national authorities cannot rely on the
victim’s attitude for their failure to take adequate measures which could
prevent the likelihood of an aggressor carrying out his threats against the
physical integrity of the victim (see Osman v. the United Kingdom, cited
above, §116).
[…]
In this respect, the Government blamed the applicant for withdrawing her
complaints and failing to co-operate with the authorities, which prevented
the latter from continuing the criminal proceedings against H.O., pursuant
to the domestic law provisions requiring the active involvement of the
victim (see paragraph 70 above).
The Court reiterates its opinion in respect of the complaint under Article 2,
namely that the legislative framework should have enabled the prosecuting
authorities to pursue the criminal investigations against H.O. despite
the withdrawal of complaints by the applicant on the basis that the violence
committed by H.O. was sufficiently serious to warrant prosecution
3. The fact that the victim wishes not to lodge an official complaint, later
withdraws such a complaint or decides to discontinue the proceedings
does not absolve the authorities from their obligation to carry out an
effective investigation, if there are reasons to believe that a serious
human rights violation has occurred.
34. Tashin Acar v. Turkey (no. 26307/95), judgment of 8 April 2004 [Grand Chamber], para.
221.
The duty to investigate
49
and that there was a constant threat to the applicant’s physical integrity
(see paragraphs 137-148 above).35
The Court stated:
[…] The Commission further observed that decisions of the national authorities
which had been produced to it contained no detailed reasons for
the dismissal of the complaints of the applicant’s parents. It was additionally
noted that there was a lack of any contemporaneous records which
could demonstrate, step by step, the nature of the investigation carried out
into the allegations and that no external authority appeared to have been
involved in any such investigations. In these circumstances, the Commission
concluded that the investigations had been both perfunctory and superficial
and did not reflect any serious effort to discover what had really
occurred in the prison in September 1998.
In the light of its own examination of the material before it, the Court shares
the findings and reasoning of the Commission and concludes that the applicant’s
arguable claim that he was ill-treated in prison was not subject to
an effective investigation by the domestic authorities as required by
Article 3 of the Convention.36
35. Opuz v. Turkey (no. 33401/02), judgment of 9 June 2009, paras. 153, 167-168.
4. A decision either to refuse to initiate or to terminate investigations
may be taken only by an independent and competent authority in accordance
with the criteria of an effective investigation as set out in
Guideline VI. They should be duly reasoned.
5. Such decisions must be subject to appropriate scrutiny and be generally
challengeable by means of a judicial process.
36. Polotratskiy v. Ukraine (no.38812/97), judgment of 29 April 2003, paras. 126-127.
VI. Criteria for an effective investigation
In order for an investigation to be effective, it should respect the following
essential requirements:
Eradicating impunity for serious human rights violations – Reference texts
50
The adequacy of the investigations was defined by the Court as follows:
In order to be “effective” as this expression is to be understood in the context
of Article 2 of the Convention, an investigation into a death that engages
the responsibility of a Contracting Party under that Article must firstly be
adequate. That is, it must be capable of leading to the identification and
punishment of those responsible. This is not an obligation of result, but one
of means. The authorities must have taken the reasonable steps available to
them to secure the evidence concerning the incident. Any deficiency in the
investigation which undermines its ability to identify the perpetrator or
perpetrators will risk falling foul of this standard (cf. Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC],
no. 26307/95, §223, ECHR 2004-III).37
Moreover, in its 14th General Report the CPT stresses that the investigation
must be comprehensive:
The investigation must also be conducted in a comprehensive manner.
The CPT has come across cases when, in spite of numerous alleged incidents
and facts related to possible ill-treatment, the scope of the investigation
was unduly circumscribed, significant episodes and surrounding
circumstances indicative of ill-treatment being disregarded.38
Adequacy
The investigation must be capable of leading to the identification and
punishment of those responsible. This does not create an obligation on
states to ensure that the investigation leads to a particular result, but the
authorities must have taken the reasonable steps available to them to secure
the evidence concerning the incident.
37. Ramsahai and others v. the Netherlands (no. 24746/94), judgment of 15 May 2007 [Grand
Chamber], para. 324.
38. 14th General Report of the CPT’s activities, covering the period 1 August 2003 to 31 July
2004 [CPT/Inf (2004) 28], para. 33.
The duty to investigate
51
The Court has described the requirement of “thoroughness” as follows:
The authorities must have taken the reasonable steps available to them to
secure the evidence concerning the incident, including inter alia eyewitness
testimony, forensic evidence and, where appropriate, an autopsy
which provides a complete and accurate record of injury and an objective
analysis of clinical findings, including the cause of death (see concerning
autopsies, e.g. Salman v. Turkey cited above, §106; concerning witnesses e.g.
Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, ECHR 1999-IV, §109; concerning forensic
evidence e.g. Gül v. Turkey, 22676/93, [Section 4], §89). Any deficiency
in the investigation which undermines its ability to establish the cause of
death or the person or persons responsible will risk falling foul of this standard.
39
Moreover, in its 14th General Report the CPT has stated that:
An investigation into possible ill-treatment by public officials must comply
with the criterion of thoroughness. It must be capable of leading to a determination
of whether force or other methods used were or were not justified
under the circumstances, and to the identification and, if appropriate,
the punishment of those concerned. This is not an obligation of result, but
of means. It requires that all reasonable steps be taken to secure evidence
concerning the incident, including, inter alia, to identify and interview the
alleged victims, suspects and eyewitnesses (e.g. police officers on duty,
other detainees), to seize instruments which may have been used in illtreatment,
and to gather forensic evidence. Where applicable, there should
Thoroughness
The investigation should be comprehensive in scope and address all of
the relevant background circumstances, including any racist or other discriminatory
motivation. It should be capable of identifying any systematic
failures that led to the violation. This requires the taking of all
reasonable steps to secure relevant evidence such as identifying and interviewing
the alleged victims, suspects and eyewitnesses; examination
of the scene of the alleged violation for material evidence; and the gathering
of forensic and medical evidence by competent specialists. The evidence
should be assessed in a thorough, consistent and objective manner.
39. Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom (no. 24746/94), judgment of 4 May 2001, para. 107.
Eradicating impunity for serious human rights violations – Reference texts
52
be an autopsy which provides a complete and accurate record of injury and
an objective analysis of clinical findings, including the cause of death. […]40
The Court stated:
For an investigation into alleged unlawful killing by state agents to be effective,
the persons responsible for and carrying out the investigation must be
independent and impartial, in law and in practice (see Güleç v. Turkey, judgment
of 27 July 1998, Reports 1998-IV, p. 1733, §§81-82; Oğur v. Turkey [GC],
no. 21594/93, §§91-92, ECHR 1999-III; and Ergi v. Turkey, judgment of 28 July
1998, Reports 1998-IV, pp. 1778-79, §§83-84).41
That principle was further elaborated by the Court:
It reiterates that, for an investigation into the facts of an alleged unlawful
killing or ill-treatment by state agents to be effective, it is generally necessary
for the persons responsible for the investigation and those conducting
the investigation to be independent from those implicated in the events
(see, for example, the judgments of Güleç v. Turkey of 27 July 1998, Reports
1998-IV, §§81-82, and Öğur v. Turkey [GC] no. 21954/93, CEDH 1999-III, §§91-
92). This requires not only the absence of any hierarchical or institutional
links, but also independence in practice (see, for example, the judgment
Ergı v. Turkey of 28 July 1998, Reports 1998-IV, §§83-84; and Kelly and others v.
the United Kingdom, no. 30054/96, §114, 4 May 2001).42
Examples in which the Court has found that an investigation had not been
impartial and independent:
40. 14th General Report of the CPT’s activities, covering the period 1 August 2003 to 31 July
2004 [CPT/Inf (2004) 28], para. 33.
Impartiality and independence
Persons responsible for carrying out the investigation must be impartial
and independent from those implicated in the events. This requires that
the authorities which are implicated in the events can neither lead the taking
of evidence nor the preliminary investigation; in particular, the investigators
cannot be part of the same unit as the officials who are the subject
of the investigation.
41. Nachova and others v. Bulgaria (nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98), judgment of 6 July 2005
[Grand Chamber], para. 112.
42. Bursuc v. Romania (no. 42066/98), judgment of 12 October 2004, para. 103 (available in
French only; unofficial translation provided by the Secretariat).
The duty to investigate
53
• the investigation was carried out by direct colleagues of the persons allegedly
involved (see Aktaş v. Turkey (no. 24351/94), judgment of
24 April 2003, para. 301);
• the investigation into the allegations of a detainee was carried out by
prison authorities without the involvement of an external authority or
body (see Kuznetsov v. Ukraine (no. 39042/97), judgment of 29 April
2003, para. 106);
• an inquiry conducted by military prosecutors who, in view of the regulations
in force, were part of the same structure as the police (Barbu
Anghelescu v. Romania (no. 46430/99), judgment of 5 October 2004,
para. 67 (only available in French));
• essential parts of the investigation were carried out by the same force
to which the alleged perpetrators belonged and acting under its own
chain of command (see Ramsahai and others v. the Netherlands (no.
24746/94), judgment of 15 May 2007 [Grand Chamber], para. 406).
Moreover, in its 14th General Report the CPT stated that:
For an investigation into possible ill-treatment to be effective, it is essential
that the persons responsible for carrying it out are independent from those
implicated in the events. In certain jurisdictions, all complaints of ill-treatment
against the police or other public officials must be submitted to a
prosecutor, and it is the latter – not the police – who determines whether a
preliminary investigation should be opened into a complaint; the CPT welcomes
such an approach. However, it is not unusual for the day-to-day responsibility
for the operational conduct of an investigation to revert to
serving law enforcement officials. The involvement of the prosecutor is
then limited to instructing those officials to carry out inquiries, acknowledging
receipt of the result, and deciding whether or not criminal charges
should be brought. It is important to ensure that the officials concerned are
not from the same service as those who are the subject of the investigation.
Ideally, those entrusted with the operational conduct of the investigation
should be completely independent from the agency implicated. Further,
prosecutorial authorities must exercise close and effective supervision of
the operational conduct of an investigation into possible ill-treatment by
public officials. They should be provided with clear guidance as to the
manner in which they are expected to supervise such investigations.43
43. 14th General Report of the CPT’s activities, covering the period 1 August 2003 to 31 July
2004 [CPT/Inf (2004) 28], para. 32.
Eradicating impunity for serious human rights violations – Reference texts
54
The Court found:
The investigation must be effective in the sense that it is capable of leading
to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Ögur v.
Turkey [GC], no. 21954/93, §88, ECHR 1999-III). Any deficiency in the investigation
which undermines its ability to establish the cause of death or the
person responsible will risk falling below this standard. In this context, there
must also be an implicit requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition
(see Yaşa v. Turkey, judgment of 2 September 1998, Reports 1998-VI,
§102-104, and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, ECHR 2000-III, §§106-
107). It must be accepted that there may be obstacles or difficulties which
prevent progress in an investigation in a particular situation. However, a
prompt response by the authorities in investigating the use of lethal force
may generally be regarded as essential in maintaining public confidence in
maintenance of the rule of law and in preventing any appearance of collusion
in or tolerance of unlawful acts.44
Moreover, in its 14th General Report the CPT stated that:
To be effective, the investigation must also be conducted in a prompt and
reasonably expeditious manner. The CPT has found cases where the necessary
investigative activities were unjustifiably delayed, or where prosecutorial
or judicial authorities demonstrably lacked the requisite will to use the
legal means at their disposal to react to allegations or other relevant information
indicative of ill-treatment. The investigations concerned were suspended
indefinitely or dismissed, and the law-enforcement officials
implicated in ill-treatment managed to avoid criminal responsibility alto-
Promptness
The investigation must be commenced with sufficient promptness in order
to obtain the best possible amount and quality of evidence available.
While there may be obstacles or difficulties which prevent progress in an
investigation in a particular situation, a prompt response by the authorities
may generally be regarded as essential in maintaining public confidence
in the maintenance of the rule of law and in preventing any
appearance of collusion in or tolerance of unlawful acts. The investigation
must be completed within a reasonable time and, in all cases, be conducted
with all necessary diligence.
44. Kukayev v. Russia (no. 29361/02), judgment of 15 November 2007, para. 95.
The duty to investigate
55
gether. In other words, the response to compelling evidence of serious misconduct
had amounted to an “investigation” unworthy of the name.45
With regard to victims’ involvement, the Court stated:
The degree of public scrutiny required may well vary from case to case. In
all cases, however, the next-of-kin of the victim must be involved in the procedure
to the extent necessary to safeguard his or her legitimate interests
(see Güleç, cited above, p. 1733, §82, where the father of the victim was not
informed of the decision not to prosecute; Oğur, cited above, §92, where
the family of the victim had no access to the investigation and court documents;
and Gül, cited above, §93).46
Moreover, in its 14th General Report the CPT stated that:
In addition to the above-mentioned criteria for an effective investigation,
there should be a sufficient element of public scrutiny of the investigation
or its results, to secure accountability in practice as well as in theory. The
degree of scrutiny required may well vary from case to case. In particularly
serious cases, a public inquiry might be appropriate. In all cases, the victim
(or, as the case may be, the victim’s next-of-kin) must be involved in the procedure
to the extent necessary to safeguard his or her legitimate interests.47
See also the “Principles on the effective prevention and investigation of
extra-legal, arbitrary and summary executions” (paras. 16-17), recommended
by United Nations Economic and Social Council resolution 1989/65 of 24
May 1989.
45. 14th General Report of the CPT’s activities, covering the period 1 August 2003 to 31 July
2004 [CPT/Inf (2004) 28], para. 35.
Public scrutiny
There should be a sufficient element of public scrutiny of the investigation
or its results to secure accountability, to maintain public confidence
in the authorities’ adherence to the rule of law and to prevent any appearance
of collusion in or tolerance of unlawful acts. Public scrutiny should
not endanger the aims of the investigation and the fundamental rights of
the parties.
46. McKerr v. the United Kingdom (no. 28883/95), judgment of 4 May 2001, para. 115.
47. 14th General Report of the CPT’s activities, covering the period 1 August 2003 to 31 July
2004 [CPT/Inf (2004) 28], para. 36.
Eradicating impunity for serious human rights violations – Reference texts
56
With regard to the participation of victims, the Court has stated:
The Court reiterates that the nature of the right safeguarded under Article
3 has implications for Article 13. Where an individual has an arguable claim
that he has been tortured or subjected to serious ill-treatment by agents of
the State, the notion of an “effective remedy” entails, in addition to the payment
of compensation where appropriate, a thorough and effective investigation
capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those
responsible, including effective access for the complainant to the investigatory
procedure (see the above-cited Aksoy judgment, §98).48
In its “Set of Principles for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights
through Action to Combat Impunity” of 8 February 2005, the United Nations
Commission on Human Rights laid down as Principle 4 (“The victims’ right to
know”):
Irrespective of any legal proceedings, victims and their families have the imprescriptible
right to know the truth about the circumstances in which violations
took place and, in the event of death or disappearance, the victims’
fate.
In its “Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for
Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious
Violations of International Humanitarian Law”, the United Nations General
Assembly laid down as Principle 24:
Moreover, victims and their representatives should be entitled to seek and
obtain information on the causes leading to their victimization and on the
causes and conditions pertaining to the gross violations of international
human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law
and to learn the truth in regard to these violations.
VII. Involvement of victims in the investigation
1. States should ensure that victims may participate in the investigation
and the proceedings to the extent necessary to safeguard their legitimate
interests through relevant procedures under national law.
48. Yaman v. Turkey (no. 32446/96), judgment of 2 November 2004, para. 53 [emphasis added].
Involvement of victims in the investigation
57
With regard to the right to receive information in criminal proceedings, the
European Union Council Framework Decision of 15 March 2001 on the
standing of victims in criminal proceedings (2001/220/JHA) states in
Article 4:
2. Each member state shall ensure that victims who have expressed a wish to
this effect are kept informed of:
(a) the outcome of their complaint;
(b) relevant factors enabling them, in the event of prosecution, to know the
conduct of the criminal proceedings regarding the person prosecuted for
offences concerning them, except in exceptional cases where the proper
handling of the case may be adversely affected;
(c) the court’s sentence.
Article 24 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons
from Enforced Disappearance states that:
1. For the purposes of this Convention, “victim” means the disappeared
person and any individual who has suffered harm as the direct result of an
enforced disappearance.
2. Each victim has the right to know the truth regarding the circumstances of
the enforced disappearance, the progress and results of the investigation
and the fate of the disappeared person. Each State Party shall take appropriate
measures in this regard.
3. Each State Party shall take all appropriate measures to search for, locate and
release disappeared persons and, in the event of death, to locate, respect
and return their remains.
2. States have to ensure that victims may, to the extent necessary to safeguard
their legitimate interests, receive information regarding the
follow-up and outcome of their complaints, the progress of the investigation
and the prosecution, the execution of judicial decisions and all
measures taken concerning reparation for damage caused to the victims.
3. In cases of suspicious death or enforced disappearances, states must,
to the extent possible, provide information regarding the fate of the
person concerned to his or her family.
Eradicating impunity for serious human rights violations – Reference texts
58
The United Nations General Assembly’s Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice
for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power of 29 November 1985 states:
The responsiveness of judicial and administrative processes to the needs of
victims should be facilitated by: […]
(c) Providing proper assistance to victims throughout the legal process;
(d) Taking measures to minimize inconvenience to victims, protect their privacy,
when necessary, and ensure their safety, as well as that of their families
and witnesses on their behalf, from intimidation and retaliation; […]
On the participation of victims, see also the Recommendation of the Council
of Europe’s Committee of Ministers to member states on assistance to crime
victims of 14 June 2006:
6. Information
Provision of information
6.1. States should ensure that victims have access to information of relevance
to their case and necessary for the protection of their interests and the exercise
of their rights.
4. Victims may be given the opportunity to indicate that they do not wish
to receive such information.
5. Where participation in proceedings as parties is provided for in domestic
law, states should ensure that appropriate public legal assistance
and advice be provided to victims, as far as necessary for their
participation in the proceedings.
6. States should ensure that, at all stages of the proceedings when necessary,
protection measures are put in place for the physical and psychological
integrity of victims and witnesses. States should ensure that
victims and witnesses are not intimidated, subject to reprisals or dissuaded
by other means from complaining or pursuing their complaints
or participating in the proceedings. Those measures may include particular
means of investigation, protection and assistance before,
during or after the investigation process, in order to guarantee the security
and dignity of the persons concerned.
Involvement of victims in the investigation
59
6.2. This information should be provided as soon as the victim comes into contact
with law enforcement or criminal justice agencies or with social or
health care services. It should be communicated orally as well as in writing,
and as far as possible in a language understood by the victim.
Content of the information
6.3. All victims should be informed of the services or organisations which can
provide support and the type and, where relevant, the costs of the support.
6.4. When an offence has been reported to law enforcement or criminal justice
agencies, the information provided to the victim should also include as a
minimum:
i. the procedures which will follow and the victims’ role in these procedures;
ii. how and in what circumstances the victim can obtain protection;
iii. how and in what circumstances the victim can obtain compensation from
the offender;
iv. the availability and, where relevant, the cost of:
– legal advice,
– legal aid, or
– any other sort of advice;
v. how to apply for state compensation, if eligible;
vi. if the victim is resident in another state, any existing arrangements which
will help to protect his or her interests.
Information on legal proceedings
6.5. States should ensure in an appropriate way that victims are kept informed
and understand:
– the outcome of their complaint;
– relevant stages in the progress of criminal proceedings;
– the verdict of the competent court and, where relevant, the sentence.
Victims should be given the opportunity to indicate that they do not wish
to receive such information. […]
10. Protection
Protection of physical and psychological integrity
10.1. States should ensure, at all stages of the procedure, the protection of the
victim’s physical and psychological integrity. Particular protection may be
necessary for victims who could be required to provide testimony.
10.2. Specific protection measures should be taken for victims at risk of intimidation,
reprisals or repeat victimisation.
Eradicating impunity for serious human rights violations – Reference texts
60
10.3. States should take the necessary measures to ensure that, at least in cases
where there might be danger to the victims, when the person prosecuted
or sentenced for an offence is released, a decision may be taken to notify
the victims if necessary.
10.4. In so far as a state forwards on its own initiative the information referred to
in paragraph 10.3, it should ensure that victims have the right to choose not
to receive it, unless communication thereof is compulsory under the terms
of the relevant criminal proceedings.
The Court has stated in this respect:
It should in no way be inferred from the foregoing that Article 2 may entail
the right for an applicant to have third parties prosecuted or sentenced for
a criminal offence (see, mutatis mutandis, Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99,
§70, ECHR 2004-I) or an absolute obligation for all prosecutions to result in
conviction, or indeed in a particular sentence (see, mutatis mutandis, Tanlı v.
Turkey, no. 26129/95, §111, ECHR 2001-III). On the other hand, the national
courts should not under any circumstances be prepared to allow life-endangering
offences to go unpunished. This is essential for maintaining
public confidence and ensuring adherence to the rule of law and for preventing
any appearance of tolerance of or collusion in unlawful acts (see,
mutatis mutandis, Hugh Jordan, cited above, §§108 and §§136-40). The
Court’s task therefore consists in reviewing whether and to what extent the
courts, in reaching their conclusion, may be deemed to have submitted the
case to the careful scrutiny required by Article 2 of the Convention, so that
the deterrent effect of the judicial system in place and the significance of
the role it is required to play in preventing violations of the right to life are
not undermined.49
VIII. Prosecutions
1. States have a duty to prosecute where the outcome of an investigation
warrants this. Although there is no right guaranteeing the prosecution
or conviction of a particular person, prosecuting authorities must,
where the facts warrant this, take the necessary steps to bring those
who have committed serious human rights violations to justice.
49. Öneryıldız v. Turkey (no. 48939/99), judgment of 30 November 2004 [Grand Chamber],
para. 96.
Involvement of victims in the investigation
61
In reference to Article 3 of the Convention, the Court held that:
In cases of wilful ill-treatment the breach of Article 3 cannot be remedied
only by an award of compensation to the victim. This is so because, if the
authorities could confine their reaction to incidents of wilful ill-treatment
by State agents to the mere payment of compensation, while not doing
enough to prosecute and punish those responsible, it would be possible in
some cases for agents of the state to abuse the rights of those within their
control with virtual impunity, and the general legal prohibition of torture
and inhuman and degrading treatment, despite its fundamental importance,
would be ineffective in practice (see, among many other authorities,
Krastanov, cited above, §60; Çamdereli, cited above, §29; and Vladimir
Romanov, cited above, §78).50
In its 12th General Report the CPT stated that:
The diligent examination by judicial and other relevant authorities of all
complaints of ill-treatment by law enforcement officials and, where appropriate,
the imposition of a suitable penalty will have a strong deterrent effect.
Conversely, if those authorities do not take effective action upon
complaints referred to them, law enforcement officials minded to ill-treat
persons in their custody will quickly come to believe that they can do so
with impunity.51
See also Principle 4 of the “United Nations Principles and Guidelines on the
Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International
Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian
Law” as well as Principle 19 of the “United Nations Principles for the
Protection and Promotion of Human Rights through Action to Combat Impunity”.
In the context of Article 3 of the Convention, the Court held that the procedural
obligation to investigate extends to the proceedings as a whole:
According to the Court’s established case-law, when an individual makes a
credible assertion that he has suffered treatment infringing Article 3 at the
50. Gäfgen v. Germany (no. 22978/05), judgment of 1 June 2010 [Grand Chamber], para. 119.
51. 12th General Report of the CPT’s activities, covering the period 1 January to 31 December
2001 [CPT/Inf (2002) 15].
2. The essential requirements for an effective investigation as set out in
Guidelines V and VI also apply at the prosecution stage.
Eradicating impunity for serious human rights violations – Reference texts
62
hands of agents of the state, it is the duty of the national authorities to carry
out “an effective official investigation” capable of establishing the facts and
identifying and punishing those responsible (see Slimani v. France, no.
57671/00, §§30 and 31, ECHR 2004-IX (extracts), and Assenov and others v.
Bulgaria, judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports, §102). What is more, the
procedural requirements of Article 3 go beyond the preliminary investigation
stage when, as in this case, the investigation leads to legal action being
taken before the national courts: the proceedings as a whole, including the
trial stage, must meet the requirements of the prohibition enshrined in Article
3. This means that the domestic judicial authorities must on no account
be prepared to let the physical or psychological suffering inflicted go
unpunished. This is essential for maintaining the public’s confidence in, and
support for, the rule of law and for preventing any appearance of the authorities’
tolerance of or collusion in unlawful acts (see, mutatis mutandis,
Öneryıldız, cited above, §96).52
Principle 4 of the United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the
Judiciary:
There shall not be any inappropriate or unwarranted interference with the
judicial process, nor shall judicial decisions by the courts be subject to revi-
52. Okkali v. Turkey (no. 52067/99), judgment of 17 October 2006, para. 65.
IX. Court proceedings
1. States should ensure the independence and impartiality of the judiciary
in accordance with the principle of separation of powers.
2. Safeguards should be put in place to ensure that lawyers, prosecutors
and judges do not fear reprisals for exercising their functions.
3. Proceedings should be concluded within a reasonable time. States
should ensure that the necessary means are at the disposal of the judicial
and investigative authorities to this end.
4. Persons accused of having committed serious human rights violations
have the right to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by
an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.
Sentences
63
sion. This principle is without prejudice to judicial review or to mitigation or
commutation by competent authorities of sentences imposed by the judiciary,
in accordance with the law.
With regard to courts applying minimum sentences without justifiable reasons,
the Court has found:
The Court observes, however, that not only was concern to give extra protection
to the minor in question sorely lacking throughout the proceedings,
but the impunity which ensued was enough to shed doubt on the
ability of the judicial machinery set in motion in this case to produce a sufficiently
deterrent effect to protect anybody at all, minor or otherwise, from
breaches of the absolute prohibition enshrined in Article 3.
[…]
In view of the above, the Court considers that the impugned court decision
suggests that the judges exercised their discretion more in order to minimise
the consequences of an extremely serious unlawful act than to show
that such acts could in no way be tolerated (see paragraph 65 above).53
In its 14th General Report the CPT stated:
41. It is axiomatic that no matter how effective an investigation may be, it will
be of little avail if the sanctions imposed for ill-treatment are inadequate.
When ill-treatment has been proven, the imposition of a suitable penalty
should follow. This will have a very strong dissuasive effect. Conversely, the
imposition of light sentences can only engender a climate of impunity.
Of course, judicial authorities are independent, and hence free to fix, within
the parameters set by law, the sentence in any given case. However, via
those parameters, the intent of the legislator must be clear: that the criminal
justice system should adopt a firm attitude with regard to torture and
other forms of ill-treatment. Similarly, sanctions imposed following the de-
X. Sentences
While respecting the independence of the courts, when serious human
rights violations have been proven, the imposition of a suitable penalty
should follow. The sentences which are handed out should be effective,
proportionate and appropriate to the offence committed.
53. Okkali v. Turkey (no. 52067/99), judgment of 17 October 2006, para. 70 and 75.
Eradicating impunity for serious human rights violations – Reference texts
64
termination of disciplinary culpability should be commensurate to the
gravity of the case.54
Even though the right to have a judgment of a domestic court executed
under Article 6 §1 of the Convention does not apply to third parties seeking
criminal prosecution of a perpetrator, the Court’s reasoning in the case of
Hornsby v. Greece on the right of access to court relating to civil rights and obligations
gives some guidance on the general importance of the speedy execution
of final and binding judgments:
40. […] However, that right would be illusory if a Contracting State’s domestic
legal system allowed a final, binding judicial decision to remain inoperative
to the detriment of one party. […] Execution of a judgment given by any
court must therefore be regarded as an integral part of the “trial” for the
purposes of Article 6.55
In the context of trafficking in human beings, the Court has stated:
In addition to the obligation to conduct a domestic investigation into
events occurring on their own territories, member States are also subject to
a duty in cross-border trafficking cases to cooperate effectively with the rel-
54. 14th General Report of the CPT’s activities, covering the period 1 August 2003 to 31 July
2004 [CPT/Inf (2004) 28].
XI. Implementation of domestic court judgments
Domestic court judgments should be fully and speedily executed by the
competent authorities.
55. Hornsby v. Greece (no. 18357/91), judgment of 1 April 1998, para. 40.
XII. International co-operation
International co-operation plays a significant role in combating impunity.
In order to prevent and eradicate impunity, states must fulfil their obligations,
notably with regard to mutual legal assistance, prosecutions and extraditions,
in a manner consistent with respect for human rights, including
the principle of “non-refoulement”, and in good faith. To that end, states
are encouraged to intensify their co-operation beyond their existing obligations.
International co-operation
65
evant authorities of other States concerned in the investigation of events
which occurred outside their territories.56
In its “Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for
Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious
Violations of International Humanitarian Law”, the United Nations General
Assembly states:
4. In cases of gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations
of international humanitarian law constituting crimes under international
law, States have the duty to investigate and, if there is sufficient
evidence, the duty to submit to prosecution the person allegedly responsible
for the violations and, if found guilty, the duty to punish her or him.
Moreover, in these cases, States should, in accordance with international
law, cooperate with one another and assist international judicial organs
competent in the investigation and prosecution of these violations.
The Council of Europe has elaborated on international co-operation with
regard to criminal proceedings in the “European Convention on Extradition”
of 13 December 1957 and the “European Convention on Mutual Assistance
in Criminal Matters” of 20 April 1959.
With regard to the principle of non-refoulement, the Court has held:
Since protection against the treatment prohibited by Article 3 is absolute,
that provision imposes an obligation not to extradite or expel any person
who, in the receiving country, would run the real risk of being subjected to
such treatment. As the Court has repeatedly held, there can be no derogation
from that rule (see the case-law cited in paragraph 127 above). It must
therefore reaffirm the principle stated in the Chahal judgment (cited above,
§81) that it is not possible to weigh the risk of ill-treatment against the reasons
put forward for the expulsion in order to determine whether the responsibility
of a State is engaged under Article 3, even where such
treatment is inflicted by another State.57
According to Guideline XII §2 of the Committee of Ministers’ “Guidelines on
human rights and the fight against terrorism”,
It is the duty of a state that has received a request for asylum to ensure that
the possible return (“refoulement”) of the applicant to his/her country of
origin or to another country will not expose him/her to the death penalty,
56. Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia (no. 25965/04), judgment of 7 January 2010, para. 289.
57. Saadi v. Italy (no. 37201/06), judgment of 28 February 2008 [Grand Chamber], para. 138.
Eradicating impunity for serious human rights violations – Reference texts
66
to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The same
applies to expulsion.
Under the heading “Individual criminal responsibility”, both Article 7 of the
Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and
Article 6 of the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
state:
4. The fact that an accused person acted pursuant to an order of a government
or of a superior shall not relieve him of criminal responsibility, but may
be considered in mitigation of punishment if the International Tribunal determines
that justice so requires.
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court lays down the principle
of superior orders in Article 33 (“Superior orders and prescription of law”).
In Assembly Resolution 1675 (2009) on “The state of human rights in Europe:
the need to eradicate impunity”, the Parliamentary Assembly stated that:
3. The Assembly further recalls that it is internationally recognised, since the
Nuremberg and Tokyo trials held in the wake of the Second World War, that
the excuse of simply following order or instructions from one’s superiors is
not valid for cases of serious human rights violation.
See also Principle 27 (“Restrictions on justifications related to due obedience,
superior responsibility, and official status”) of the United Nations Commission
on Human Rights’ “Set of Principles for the Protection and Promotion of
Human Rights through Action to Combat Impunity” of 8 February 2005.
XIII. Accountability of subordinates
While the following of orders or instructions from a superior may have a
bearing on punishment, it may not serve as a circumstance precluding accountability
for serious human rights violations.
XIV. Restrictions and limitations
States should support, by all possible means, the investigation of serious
human rights violations and the prosecution of alleged perpetrators. Legitimate
restrictions and limitations on investigations and prosecutions
should be restricted to the minimum necessary to achieve their aim.
Non-judicial mechanisms
67
With regard to restrictions and limitations, the Court has pointed out:
[…] where a State agent has been charged with crimes involving torture or
ill-treatment, it is of the utmost importance for the purposes of an ‘effective
remedy’ that criminal proceedings and sentencing are not time-barred and
that the granting of an amnesty or pardon should not be permissible.58
The right to reparations is elaborated in the United Nations Principles and
Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations
of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International
Humanitarian Law, in particular Principles 15-24,59 and the Set of
Principles for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights through Action
to Combat Impunity, Principles 31-34.
It is further affirmed by a wide range of provisions in international treaties
such as Article 2 (3), 9 (5) and 14 (6) of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights as well as in Articles 5 (5), 13 and 41 of the European Convention
on Human Rights.
See also the European Convention on the Compensation of Victims of Violent
Crime of 24 November 1983 and the Recommendation of the Council of
58. Yaman v. Turkey (no. 32446/96), judgment of 2 November 2004, para. 55. See also the
cases of Yeter v. Turkey (no. 33750/03), judgment of 13 January 2009, para. 70; and Ould
Dah v. France (no. 13113/03), decision of 17 March 2009, p. 17.
XV. Non-judicial mechanisms
States should also consider establishing non-judicial mechanisms such as
parliamentary or other public inquiries, ombudspersons, independent
commissions and mediation as useful complementary procedures to the
domestic judicial remedies guaranteed under the Convention.
XVI. Reparation
States should take all appropriate measures to establish accessible and effective
mechanisms which ensure that victims of serious human rights violations
receive prompt and adequate reparation for the harm suffered.
This may include measures of rehabilitation, compensation, satisfaction,
restitution and guarantees of non-repetition.
59. Definitions of the terms rehabilitation, compensation, satisfaction, restitution and guarantees
of non-repetition are given in paras. 20 to 24 of these principles.
Eradicating impunity for serious human rights violations – Reference texts
68
Europe’s Committee of Ministers to member states on assistance to crime
victims of 14 June 2006. |