5. the police oversight body should have the power to make recommendations designed to improve the processes, procedures and laws for the investigation of alleged misconduct by police officers and law enforcement officials; 6. where the police oversight body makes recommendations, a mechanism should be in place to ensure that these recommendations are implemented effectively; 7. a final letter or report should provide a summary of the facts taken into account, describe the result of the investigation or review undertaken, and where appropriate the reasons for the decisions that have been reached. This material should be sent to the complainant at the completion of the investigation and should also detail what the complainant can do if they are unsatisfied with the outcome. This may also assist them in the private prosecution of their case, thus providing them with an alternative avenue for redress 19; and, 8. the police oversight body should have the power to publicise the results of any inquiry or investigation undertaken, where appropriate to do so, together with details of any recommendations made and progress on implementing them. Where this material is published it should be easily accessible to the public. This set of key principles, their underpinning propositions and the assertions of the European Code of Police Ethics provide the blueprint for police oversight mechanisms which are capable of properly delivering State obligations set out in legislation and in Court judgements. The models of police oversight encountered in the 47 States of the Council of Europe should be assessed against their conformance with this blueprint. 1.2 Project aim: The aim of this research project is to update the September 2015 critical review of current policing oversight bodies across the forty-seven Council of Europe states and to provide an outline of the inception and development of oversight mechanisms. Finally, an assessment of progress or otherwise of recommendations made in 2015 will be presented in the context of; ‘The prevention of human rights violations and monitoring of professionalism.’ 19 UN Committee Against Torture case of Dzemajl v Yugoslavia CAT 161/00. 12