There are no hard and fast rules as to what constitutes ‘prompt’ or ’immediate.’ The jurisprudence indicates that the words would normally be given their literal meaning. However, human rights treaty bodies provide limited guidance as to when a delay becomes unacceptable. There are no clear rules on a specific timeframe or the factors to be taken into account when considering delays. Nor is there consistent reasoning why a particular delay is in violation of a state party’s obligations, many decisions simply stating that a particular period for taking certain measures constitutes a violation. Instead, guidance must be deduced from the case-by-case approach taken by human rights bodies. The United Nations Committee against Torture found that delays in opening an investigation following a complaint about torture or other ill-treatment violated the Convention. The number of days of delay related to these findings was as follows: • • • • 14 days; 86 10 months87 and 15 months respectively;88 34 months;89 7 years.90 The Committee against Torture held that the “lack of any protest” from the torture victim about the long period of delay does not excuse delays in examining complaints.91 The Human Rights Committee declared in its General Comment 20 that, “complaints must be investigated promptly and impartially by competent authorities so as to make the remedy effective.” It has not specified the meaning of promptness but has dealt with it on an individual case-basis, finding, for example, that a delay of three months in opening an investigation failed to meet this obligation.92 The European Court of Human Rights has found in several cases that the authorities failed to carry out prompt and timely investigations but has neither defined the meaning of “prompt” nor developed uniform criteria. In its consideration of the investigation of torture cases, the Court has applied the test of whether “the authorities reacted effectively to the complaints at the relevant time.”93 As elaborated in the case of Bati v. Turkey: “It is beyond doubt that a requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition is implicit in this context…While there may be obstacles or difficulties which prevent progress in an investigation in a particular situation, it may generally be regarded as essential for the authorities to launch an investigation promptly in order to maintain public confidence in their adherence to the rule of law and prevent any appearance of collusion in or tolerance of unlawful acts.”94 86 Encarnación Blanco Abad v. Spain, paras.8.4, 8.5. 87 Khaled M'Barek v. Tunisia, para.11.5. 88 Qani Halimi-Nedzibi v. Austria, para.13.5. 89 Jovica Dimitrov v. Serbia and Montenegro, para.7.2. 90 Ali Ben Salem v. Tunisia, para.16.7. 91 Blanco Abad v. Spain, para.8.7. 92 Rajapakse v. Sri Lanka, para.9.4. 93 Labita v Italy, para.131. 94 Bati and others v Turkey, para.136. 20