Abstract
Human rights have a procedural side. If there is a complaint, or suspicion, that the police have abused their powers, human rights require such cases to be investigated effectively. This requirement has been developed by international human rights bodies during the last decades, in particular in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights on the right to life and the prohibition of torture. This chapter describes the conditions of an ‘effective’ investigation, including the role of independent police complaint bodies in avoiding impunity for human rights violations.
Dr Graham Smith is a Senior Lecturer in Regulation at the University of Manchester and a Council of Europe consultant on human rights law. Since drafting the Commissioner for Human Rights Complaints Opinion in 2009 he has advised on combating impunity and police complaints and participated in training programmes.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Committee Study of the Central Intelligence Agency’s Detention and Interrogation Program (2014) Findings and Conclusions and Executive Summary. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, https://web.archive.org/web/20141209165504/http:/www.intelligence.senate.gov/study2014/sscistudy1.pdf.
- 2.
See Amnesty International (2015).
- 3.
- 4.
Velasquez Rodriguez Case, Judgment of July 29, 1988, Inter-Am.Ct.H.R. (Ser. C) No. 4 (1988).
- 5.
For example, Council of Europe ETS No. 126, European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, CPT/Inf/C (2002) 1 [EN]; UN General Assembly, Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 9 January 2003, A/RES/57/199; UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (‘Istanbul Protocol’), 2004, HR/P/PT/8/Rev.1.
- 6.
For example, European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), www.cpt.coe.int; Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (SPT), http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/OPCAT/Pages/Brief.aspx.
- 7.
For example, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), www.osce.org, and Amnesty International, www.amnesty.org, respectively.
- 8.
See, for example, Set of Principles for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights through Action to Combat Impunity (UN Doc. E/CN.4/2005/102/Add.1): https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G05/109/00/PDF/G0510900.pdf?OpenElement; Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on eradicating impunity for serious human rights violations, Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 30 March 2011 at the 1110th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies: https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1769177.
- 9.
See Murdoch and Roach (2013).
- 10.
(Application no. 52391), Judgment 15 May 2007.
- 11.
(Application no. 24014/05), Judgment 14 April 2015. See also Kukavika and Fikfak’s (2015) case comment.
- 12.
McCann v the United Kingdom (Application no. 18984/91), Judgment 27 September 1995, para. 161.
- 13.
See Smith (2015a).
- 14.
Aksoy v Turkey (Application no. 21987/93), Judgment 18 December 1996: Article 2 jurisprudence on effective investigation was applied to Article 3 in Assenov v Bulgaria (Application no. 24760/94), Judgment 28 October 1998.
- 15.
Ergi v Turkey (Application no. 23818/94), Judgment 28 July 1998; Güleç v Turkey (Application no. 1593/93), Judgment 27 July 1998.
- 16.
Ergi v Turkey (Application no. 23818/94), Judgment 28 July 1998. The obligation to investigate allegations against non-state actors was applied to Article 3 in Assenov v Bulgaria (Application no. 24760/94), Judgment 28 October 1998.
- 17.
Jordan v The United Kingdom (Application no. 24746/94); McKerr v. the United Kingdom (Application no. 28883/95); Kelly and Others v. the United Kingdom, (Application no. 30054/96); and Shanaghan v. the United Kingdom (Application no. 37715/97): all judgments 4 May 2001.
- 18.
See, for example, Jordan v The United Kingdom (Application no. 24746/94), Judgment 4 May 2001, paras 102–109.
- 19.
Jordan v The United Kingdom (Application no. 24746/94), Judgment 4 May 2001, para. 106.
- 20.
Nachova & Others v Bulgaria (Application nos. 43577/98 & 43579/98), Judgment 6 July 2005.
- 21.
(Application no. 52391), Judgment 15 May 2007.
- 22.
Ramsahai v The Netherlands (Application no. 52391/99), Judgment 15 May 2007, para. 324.
- 23.
Ramsahai v The Netherlands (Application no. 52391/99), Judgment 15 May 2007, para. 325.
- 24.
Ramsahai v The Netherlands (Application no. 52391/99), Judgment 15 May 2007, paras. 326–332: by a majority decision of sixteen votes to one.
- 25.
Ramsahai v The Netherlands (Application no. 52391/99), Judgment 15 May 2007, para. 333–341.
- 26.
(Application no. 24014/05), Judgment 14 April 2015. See also Kukavika and Fikfak’s (2015) case comment.
- 27.
Tunç v Turkey (Application no. 24014/05), Judgment 14 April 2015, paras. 223–225: by a majority decision of twelve votes to five.
- 28.
Tunç v Turkey (Application no. 24014/05), Judgment 25 June 2013, para. 138.
- 29.
Tunç v Turkey (Application no. 24014/05), Judgment 14 April 2015, para. 225.
- 30.
Tunç v Turkey (Application no. 24014/05), Judgment 14 April 2015, para. 254.
- 31.
Tunç v Turkey (Application no. 24014/05), Judgment 14 April 2015, paras. 209 and 216, respectively.
- 32.
Revised final Report prepared by Mr. Joinet pursuant to Sub-Commission decision 1996/119, Question of the impunity of perpetrators of human rights violations (civil and political), UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/20/Rev.1, 1 (2 October 1997). http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/impu/joinet2.html.
- 33.
Judgment of July 29, 1988, Inter-Am.Ct.H.R. (Ser. C) No. 4 (1988).
- 34.
Vienna Declaration and Program of Action: UN Doc. A/Conf,157/24. Part II. para.91.
- 35.
Set of Principles for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights through Action to Combat Impunity (UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/20/Rev.1, annex II).
- 36.
Set of Principles for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights through Action to Combat Impunity (UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/20/Rev.1, annex II) p14.
- 37.
- 38.
- 39.
Rojas Baez (1996), p. 85.
- 40.
On this point, Cherif Bassiouni (2000) ascribed impunity to the conflicting goals of realpolitik and justice, and described it as a consequence of the search for compromise between political settlement and legal accountability.
- 41.
Set of Principles for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights through Action to Combat Impunity (UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/20/Rev.1, annex II).
- 42.
Set of Principles for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights through Action to Combat Impunity (UN Doc. E/CN.4/2005/102/Add.1): https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G05/109/00/PDF/G0510900.pdf?OpenElement.
- 43.
Buttressed by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and access to justice in the event of failure by a state to meet international humanitarian law duties.
- 44.
Set of Principles for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights through Action to Combat Impunity (UN Doc. E/CN.4/2005/102/Add.1).
- 45.
CPT, 2004, 14th General Report on the CPT's activities covering the period 1 August 2003 to 31 July 2004: CPT/Inf (2004) 28.
- 46.
See, for example, CPT/Inf/E (2002) 1 - Rev. 2015.
- 47.
European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment: CPT/Inf/C (2002) 1 [EN].
- 48.
CPT Standards. CPT/Inf/E (2002) 1 - Rev. 2015, p. 105.
- 49.
Expert Workshop ‘Police complaints mechanisms: ensuring independence and effectiveness’ Strasbourg, 26-27 May 2008, Report, Council of Europe CommDH(2008)16.
- 50.
Council of Europe, CommDH(2009)4, https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?p=&id=1417857&direct=true, see Smith (2010). In the same year guidelines on effective investigation standards were published as part of a ‘Combating ill-treatment and impunity’ joint programme of the European Commission and the Council of Europe, which focussed on police and law enforcement activities in five Council of Europe member states – Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine: see Svanidze (2009).
- 51.
See Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions: Addendum Study on police oversight mechanisms: UN A/HRC/14/24/Add.8, published 28 May 2010.
- 52.
See Handbook on police oversight, accountability and integrity, UNODC, Vienna, 2011.
- 53.
Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on eradicating impunity for serious human rights violations, Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 30 March 2011 at the 1110th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies, p. 2: https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1769177.
- 54.
The Commissioner’s Complaints Opinion, for example, see fn. 39 above.
- 55.
- 56.
Further evidence on the difficulties faced is to be found in the annual reports of the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (http://www.coe.int/en/web/execution/home).
- 57.
Orentlicher reported favourably on the effectiveness of the Joinet Principles and recommended their updating: Independent study on best practices, including recommendations, to assist states in strengthening their domestic capacity to perform all aspects of impunity, by Professor Diane Orentlicher: UN Doc. E/CN.4/2004/88: p. 2. https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G04/113/55/PDF/G0411355.pdf?OpenElement. Orentlicher later pointed out the importance of understanding the cultural context of impunity, see Impunity Watch (2007).
- 58.
Providing that there is not impunity de jure, in which case remedies for human rights abuse are a matter for the legislature in the first instance; see, for example, Cestaro v Italy (Application no. 68841/11), Judgment of 7 April 2015.
- 59.
See Smith (2009).
- 60.
Tunç v Turkey (Application no. 24014/05), Judgment 14 April 2015, para. 174.
- 61.
Tunç v Turkey (Application no. 24014/05), Judgment 14 April 2015, para. 175.
- 62.
- 63.
Tunç v Turkey (Application no. 24014/05), Judgment 14 April 2015, para. 254.
- 64.
For an interesting discussion on complaints and police legitimacy see Torrible (2016).
- 65.
- 66.
- 67.
Also evidenced in the case files and reports of the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights: http://www.coe.int/en/web/execution/home.
- 68.
Only two IPCBs with investigation powers have been established in Europe, in Scotland and Denmark, since publication of the Commissioner’s Complaints Opinion; see Smith (2015b).
- 69.
See Luna and Walker (2000).
- 70.
See Goldsmith (2005).
- 71.
See Prenzler and Ronken (2001).
- 72.
See Smith (2009).
- 73.
Tunç v Turkey (Application no. 24014/05), Judgment 14 April 2015, para. 255.
- 74.
On this point see the joint dissenting opinion of Judges Speilmann, Karakaş, Ziemele, López Guerra, and de Gaetano; Tunç v Turkey (Application no. 24014/05), Judgment 14 April 2015.
- 75.
I am grateful to Neville Harris for comments on an earlier draft of this chapter. The usual caveat applies.
References
Afflitto FM (2000) Victimization, survival and the impunity of forced exile: a case study from the Rwandan genocide. Crime Law Social Change 34:77–97
Amnesty International (2015) USA crimes and impunity: Full Senate Committee report on CIA secret detentions must be released, and accountability for crimes under international law ensured. Amnesty International, London
Armstrong MJ (2016) Are we nearing the end of impunity for taking black lives? Santa Clara Law Rev 56(4):721–761
Cherif Bassiouni M (2000) Combating impunity for international crimes. Univ Colo Law Rev 71:409–422
Goldsmith A (2005) Police reform and the problem of trust. Theor Criminol 9(4):443–470
Goldsmith A, Lewis C (2000) Introduction. In: Goldsmith A, Lewis C (eds) Civilian oversight of policing: governance, democracy and human rights. Hart, Oxford
Harris F (2015) The next civil rights movement? Dissent 62(3):34–40
Impunity Watch (2007) Research Instrument. www.impunitywatch.org
Kukavika J, Fikfak V (2015) Strasbourg’s U-turn on independence as part of an effective investigation under Article 2. Camb Law J 74(3):415–419
Luna E, Walker S (2000) Institutional structure vs political will: Albuquerque as a case study in the effectiveness of citizen oversight of the police. In: Goldsmith A, Lewis C (eds) Civilian oversight of policing: governance, democracy and human rights. Hart, Oxford
McSherry JP, Molina Mejia R (1992) Confronting the Question of Justice in Guatemala’. Soc Justice 19(3):1–28
Murdoch J, Roach R (2013) The European Convention on Human Rights and policing: a handbook for police officers and other law enforcement officials. Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg. http://www.coe.int/t/dgi/hr-natimplement/Source/documentation/EuropeanConventionHandbookForPolice.pdf
Penrose MM (1999) Impunity – inertia, inaction, and invalidity: a literature review. Bost Univ Int Law J 17:269–310
Prenzler T (2000) Civilian oversight of police: a test of capture theory. Br J Criminol 40:659–674
Prenzler T, den Heyer G (eds) (2015) Civilian oversight of police: advancing accountability in law enforcement. CRC, Boca Raton
Prenzler T, Ronken C (2001) Models of police oversight: a critique. Polic Soc 11(2):151–180
Rojas Baez P (1996) Breaking the human link: the medico-psychiatric view of impunity. In: Harper C (ed) Impunity: an ethical perspective: six case studies from Latin America. World Council of Churches, Geneva, pp 73–95
Rojas Baez P (2000) Impunity: an impossible reparation. Nord J Int Law 69:27–34
Savage S (2013) Thinking independence: calling the police to account through the independent investigation of police complaints. Br J Criminol 27(7):723–746
Smith G (2009) Why don’t more people complain against the police? Eur J Criminol 6(3):249–266
Smith G (2010) Every complaint matters: Human Rights Commissioner’s opinion concerning independent and effective determination of complaints against the police. Int J Law Crime Justice 38(2):59–74
Smith G (2013) Oversight of the police and residual complaints dilemmas: independence, effectiveness and accountability deficits in the United Kingdom. Police Pract Res 14(2):92–103
Smith G (2015a) The interface between human rights and police complaints. In: Prenzler T, den Heyer G (eds) Civilian oversight of police: advancing accountability in law enforcement. CRC, Boca Raton, pp 159–178
Smith G (2015b) International police complaints reform. Paper presented to the ‘CPT at 25: taking stock and moving forward’ Conference, Palais de l’Europe, Strasbourg, France; 2 March 2015. http://www.cpt.coe.int/en/conferences/cpt25-Panel1-Smith.pdf (accessed 2 November 2015)
Svanidze E (2009) Effective investigation of ill-treatment: guidelines on European standards. Council of Europe/European Union, Strasbourg
Torrible C (2016) Reconceptualising the police complaints process as a site of contested legitimacy claims. Policing and Society published online 3 June 2016:1–16 https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2016.1191486
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Smith, G. (2018). Effective Investigation of Alleged Police Human Rights Abuse: Combating Impunity. In: Alleweldt, R., Fickenscher, G. (eds) The Police and International Human Rights Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71339-7_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71339-7_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-71338-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-71339-7
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)