The Court’s jurisprudence indicates that there should be no unnecessary delay in beginning the investigation, which should be carried out within reasonably short succession after receiving the complaint.95 The Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in the case Cantoral Benavides v Peru, referred to Article 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, which “clearly sets forth the obligation of the State to proceed as a matter of routine and immediately in cases such as the present case [which concerned a torture investigation],” thus implying a literal meaning.96 In an important clarification of the scope of the obligation to promptly commence investigations ex officio, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights held in the Maritza Urrutia case that: “Article 8 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture97 establishes expressly the State’s obligation to proceed, de officio, and immediately in cases such as this, regardless of the inactivity of the victim. In this respect, the Court has stated that ‘in proceedings on human rights violation, the State’s defense cannot rest on the impossibility of the plaintiff to produce evidence that, in many cases, cannot be obtained without the cooperation of the State.’ In the instant case, the State did not act in accordance with these provisions.”98 (iii) Expediency of investigations In the case of Encarnacion Blanco Abad v Spain, the investigation took 10 months, with gaps of between one and three months between the taking of statements and the consideration of forensic evidence. The United Nations Committee against Torture found this to be an unacceptable delay. The European Court of Human Rights summarised its position on the expediency of investigations in the case of Mikheyev v. Russia: “The investigation must be expedient. In cases under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, where the effectiveness of the official investigation was at issue, the Court often assessed whether the authorities reacted promptly to the complaints at the relevant time (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no.26772/95, § 133 et seq., ECHR 2000IV). Consideration was given to the starting of investigations, delays in taking statements (see Timurtaş v Turkey, no. 23531/94, § 89, ECHR 2000-VI, § 67), and the length of time taken during the initial investigation (see Indelicato v. Italy, no. 31143/96, § 37, 18 October 2001).99” The European Court of Human Rights found a lack of effectiveness and expediency in Mikheyev on several grounds: 95 ÇIçek v. Turkey, para.149; Timurtas v. Turkey, para.89. See also Tekin v. Turkey, para. 67; and Labita v. Italy, para.133. 96 Cantoral Benavides v. Peru, para.189 and, Gutierrez-Soler v Colombia, para.54: “The Court considers that, in the light of the general obligation of the State Parties to respect and guarantee the rights of all persons subject to its jurisdiction, contained in Article 1(1) of the American Convention, the State has the obligation to commence immediately an effective investigation that may allow the identification, the trial and the punishment of those liable, whenever there is an accusation or well-grounded reason to believe that an act of torture has been committed in violation of Article 5 of the American Convention. Furthermore, this action is specifically regulated in Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture, which Articles bind the State Parties to take all steps that may be effective to prevent and punish all acts of torture within the scope of their jurisdiction, as well as to guarantee that all torture cases be examined impartially.” 97 Article 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture stipulates that: “… if there is an accusation or wellgrounded reason to believe that an act of torture has been committed within their jurisdiction, the States Parties shall guarantee that their respective authorities will proceed ex officio and immediately to conduct an investigation into the case and to initiate, whenever appropriate, the corresponding criminal process.” 98 Maritza Urrutia v. Guatemala, para.128. See for more recent jurisprudence also Castro-Castro v Peru, paras.378 et seq. 99 Mikheyev v Russia, para.109. 21