2. Delays in the investigation and prosecution of torture cases 2.1. Delays and impunity: Nature, causes, consequences Country practice - Overview The failure to promptly open and carry out torture investigations contributes to ineffective investigations in many parts of the world. The examination of the investigation practice in torture cases shows several types of delays occurring at different stages of proceedings: • • • • • • • • Inaction following the receipt of the complaint (which initially constitutes a delay that may turn into complete inaction over time where there is no reasonable prospect of any action being taken); Formal opening of investigations without any further action being taken, due to legal obstacles such as amnesties or immunities that potentially block investigations indefinitely or result in substantial delays (where amnesty legislation is subsequently repealed and immunities are lifted) or simple inaction. Formal opening of investigations followed by limited steps taken at the beginning of the investigation without any further action, with the investigation remaining open; Opening of investigation only to be closed after brief preliminary investigations or after inadequate investigations; Re-opening, closing and re-opening of investigations resulting in delays; Formal opening of investigations with substantial gaps between investigatory steps taken throughout proceedings; Inaction following completion of investigations and/or substantial gaps between completion of investigations and indictment; Delays in conducting the trial, including the fixing of hearing dates, postponements, time taken to deliver judgments. Human rights treaty bodies have repeatedly expressed their concerns at the lack of prompt and expeditious investigations and the concomitant impunity. Both international and regional human rights treaty bodies and courts have ruled that the lack of prompt investigations and undue delays in torture proceedings violate states parties’ obligations to an effective remedy.1 The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and other UN human rights mechanisms have raised concerns about the prevalence of delays in the investigation of serious human rights violations, including torture.2 Human rights bodies have also dealt with the issue of delays in the context of countries’ capacity to administer justice, in particular in relation to the effectiveness of police and prosecution services and judicial administrations. 1 See infra at 2.2.2. II. 2 Report by the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak: Mission to Mongolia, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.4, 20 December 2005, para.41 (highlighting the lack of institutional capacity of the investigation office) and Report by the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak: Mission to Georgia, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.3, 23 September 2005, paras.34, 35 (noting shortcomings in complaints procedure and delays in the early stage of investigations, in particular “with respect to medical examinations.”) 5