A/HRC/52/30 Pinochet were identified through the work of the National Commission on Political Imprisonment and Torture (Valech Commission), which operated from 2003–2004, and had to be re-opened in 2010, adding approximately 30,000 additional survivors. 94 The Royal Commission to Enhance the Operation and Management of the Royal Malaysia Police, established in 2004 following a series of allegations of police brutality and custodial deaths, received more than 900 submissions.95 Australia established a specialized investigation unit in 1987 to pursue alleged Nazi war criminals who had immigrated to the country following World War II and established another in 2020 to investigate potential war crimes committed during the Australian engagement in Afghanistan from 2005–2016.96 66. A level of public scrutiny and transparency is key to ensuring public confidence in the good administration of justice. This includes publishing reports on the number of complaints, investigations conducted, recommendations for prosecution, including time frames and outcomes, and information both on whether those accused were found guilty and the sentences applied, as well as on the remedies provided to the victim(s). 97 In the event of deaths alleged to be caused by torture, autopsies or post-mortem examinations should be recorded and investigations triggered ex officio.98 67. Prompt investigations ensure timely evidence gathering, which protects the integrity of process and the broader administration of justice. Despite this fundamental element, there is a lack of agreed standards as to what constitutes a “reasonable delay” or “promptness”. The Istanbul Protocol indicates that investigations should be commenced “within hours, or, at the most, a few days after the suspicion of torture or ill-treatment has arisen, and to be conducted expeditiously throughout”.99 It is the position of the Special Rapporteur that any complaints of torture and other ill-treatment should be reported to judicial or other independent authorities immediately (within hours) and no later than 24 to 48 hours after complaints or allegations of torture are made known. Any delays are to be explained and documented in writing and such decisions must be open to judicial challenge. 68. Finally, investigations must be pursued with rigor so as to be capable of leading to the truth and, where appropriate, the prosecution of suspects.100 Authorities must make a serious attempt to find out what happened and should not rely on hasty or ill-founded conclusions to close their investigations.101 In some situations a presumption of unlawful conduct may arise, for example where an individual is in good health at the time of being taken into police custody but is found to be injured at time of release.102 Evidence preservation measures ought to stipulate that data from closed circuit television, body cameras and other electronic systems be collected and stored off-site, that is, outside the prison or police station and without the ability of anyone to tamper with such evidence. In an era marked by the proliferation of digital information, including both misinformation and disinformation, it is crucial that investigators are able to determine whether open source information is authentic and to establish or disprove its veracity with sufficient accuracy.103 H. Sentencing perpetrators 69. Penalties are to be commensurate with the gravity of the offence of torture, 104 which should be assessed according to penalties established in national legislation for the most serious offences and sentencing laws and/or guidelines. When an act of torture is committed 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 16 Convention against Torture Initiative, UNCAT Implementation Tool 7/2019. Submission by Suara Rakyat Malaysia and Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network. Submission by Australian Centre for International Justice. Submission by Redress. Submission by Association for the Prevention of Torture. Istanbul Protocol, para. 193. European Court of Human Rights, Oğur v. Turkey, Application No. 21594/93, 20 May 1999, para. 88. Ibid., El Masri v. The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Application No. 39630/09, 13 December 2012, para. 183. Ibid., Tomasi v. France, series A No. 241-A, 27 August 1992, paras. 108–111; Selmouni v. France, Application No. 25803/94, 28 July 1999, para. 87. Berkeley Protocol on Digital Open Source Investigations (2022), para. 55. Convention against Torture, art. 4.2. GE.23-03126