These powers and procedural rights need to be backed up with measures that seek to strengthen the capacity of courts, in particular case management, which enable courts to deal with their caseload efficiently.148 Victims’ rights In parallel, legislation should provide complainants with the right to: - bring timely complaints of torture, be it in habeas corpus or other proceedings; be informed about the status of investigations and relevant proceedings throughout; appeal to the court to challenge investigative decisions by the investigating authorities; seek court orders compelling the authorities to undertake certain investigative measures, including expediting the taking of such measures; challenge any motion during trials that may result in substantial delays. 3. Delays in the resolution of reparation claims 3.1. Prolonged court proceedings a) Lack of effective investigations resulting in delays In some systems, courts cannot by law award reparation for torture pending the outcome of a criminal prosecution. This is the case in partie civile proceedings (civil suits brought in the course of criminal trials). A claim for reparation will in such instances remain pending as long as any criminal investigations or trials are pending. Even where the outcome of a civil or constitutional case is in principle independent of any criminal investigation, the lack of prompt and effective investigations can delay or altogether frustrate the pursuit of reparation claims. A torture victim may not be able to identify the perpetrator, which may be a precondition for bringing a suit. In the absence of effective investigations, victims also face major hurdles in obtaining evidence to prove their case, which may result in delays in obtaining medical and other types of evidence where the victim has to secure such evidence him or herself. Furthermore, the lack of effective investigations often means that the perpetrators are still in office or emboldened by the apparent impunity, which can increase the likelihood that they will harass or threaten victims or witnesses to withdraw their claims or to accept out-of-court settlements.149 The perpetrators or those close to them may equally put pressure on the lawyers of torture victims or other human rights defenders supporting a claim.150 Such threats may cause lawyers to drop the case, may make victims and witnesses reluctant to give evidence and may produce a climate that adversely impacts on their willingness to pursue claims. Case Study: Rajapakse v. Sri Lanka 148 See for an example of a review of a national system in Sri Lanka, The Eradication of Law Delays, Final Report, Committee appointed to recommend amendments to the practice and procedure in investigations and courts, 2 April 2004. 149 For example in Bangladesh, see REDRESS, Torture in Bangladesh 1971-2004, Making international commitments a reality and providing justice and reparations to victims, August 2004, p.38. 150 See for an overview, Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights defenders, Hilal Jinani, Addendum, Summary of cases transmitted to Governments and replies received, A/HRC/4/37/Add.1, 27 March 2007. 32