• • • Incommunicado detention lasting for more than a very short time will normally violate the right to be brought promptly before a judge;76 It is not sufficient to advise a detainee of the charges, the state must put him/her before an individual with judicial authority;77 It is not sufficient to obtain confirmation of the detention from the public prosecutor, as such confirmation must come from a person exercising judicial authority.78 The United Nations Human Rights Committee also found a violation of Article 9 (3) in those cases where domestic rules of criminal procedure only allow an appeal to a higher prosecutor, and where detention cannot be challenged in court,79 including those cases where such detention took place under the authority of anti-terrorism laws.80 With regard to the period between filing a habeas corpus application and the decision on such application, the ECHR found that a delay of 23 days was in violation of Article 5 (4).81 The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has ruled on the effectiveness of habeas corpus remedies in several disappearance cases, considering the timeliness as one factor in assessing overall effectiveness.82 In the case of Juan Humberto Sanchez v. Honduras, the Court found that the fact that it took the serving judge 8 days to report back to the court in charge of deciding on the habeas corpus remedy constituted a delay that contributed to rendering the remedy ineffective.83 (ii) Commencing an investigation As a general rule there is “…an obligation on the authorities to proceed automatically to a prompt and impartial investigation whenever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture or ill-treatment has been committed, no special importance being attached to the grounds for the suspicion.”84 As held by the European Court of Human Rights “…whatever the method of investigation, the authorities must act as soon as an official complaint has been lodged. Even when strictly speaking no complaint has been made, an investigation must be started if there are sufficiently clear indications that torture or illtreatment has been used”85 The use of the words ‘automatically’ and the phrase ’as soon as’ implies that states must open investigations into credible allegations of torture as a matter of course upon receiving such information. 76 Teran Jijon v Ecuador, para.5.3; Rafael Marques de Morais v. Angola, para.6.3; Fatma Zohra Boucherf v. Algeria, para.9.5; Ali Medjnoune v. Algeria, para.8.7 and Louisa Bousroual v. Algeria, para.9.6; Abdukarim Boimurodov v. Tajikistan, para.7.4. As for regional jurisprudence, see the judgment of the Inter-American Court in Cantoral Benavides v. Peru, paras.81 et seq.; Kurt v. Turkey, paras.122 et seq. and Article 19 v The State of Eritrea, para.100. 77 Beresford Whyte v. Jamaica, para.9.1. 78 Platonov v. Russian Federation, para.7.2: “The Committee observes that article 9, paragraph 3, is intended to bring the detention of a person charged with a criminal offence under judicial control and recalls that it is inherent to the proper exercise of judicial power, that it be exercised by an authority which is independent, objective and impartial in relation to the issues dealt with. [Footnote omitted] In the circumstances of the present case, the Committee is not satisfied that the public prosecutor may be characterized as having the institutional objectivity and impartiality necessary to be considered an ‘officer authorized to exercise judicial power’ within the meaning of article 9, paragraph 3.” See also Kulomin v. Hungary, para.11.3; Darmon Sultanova v. Uzbekistan, para.7.7 and Yuri Bandajevsky v. Belarus, para.10.3. 79 Saimijon and Malokhat Bazarov v. Uzbekistan, para.8.2. 80 Yuri Bandajevsky v. Belarus, para.10.3; Marlem Carranza Alegre v. Peru, para.7.3. 81 Rehbock v Slovenia, paras.85, 86. 82 Serrano-Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador, paras.75 et seq. and Gomez-Paquiyauir Brothers v. Peru, para.97 and La Cantuta v. Peru, para.111. 83 Humberto Sanchez v. Honduras, para.122. 84 Dhaou Belgacem Thabti v. Tunisia, para.10.4. See also Bouabdallah Ltaief v. Tunisia, para.10.4; Imed Abdelli v. Tunisia, para. 10.4. 85 Bati and others v Turkey, para.133. 19