Section 2.3: Post-Incident Procedures and Accountability Mechanisms. Section 2.3.1: Medical examination and treatment The Basic Principles (Principle 5) note that, when force is used, officials shall ‘ensure that assistance and medical aid are rendered to any injured or affected persons at the earliest possible moment’. Similarly the CPT (1992) note that ‘a prisoner against whom any means of force have been used should have the right to be immediately examined and, if necessary, treated by a medical doctor. This examination should be conducted out of the hearing and preferably out of the sight of non-medical staff, and the results of the examination (including any relevant statements by the prisoner and the doctor’s conclusions) should be formally recorded and made available to the prisoner’. The Istanbul Protocol (1999) provides international guidance for investigating cases of alleged torture and for reporting findings to the judiciary or any other investigative body, and should be followed in cases where there are allegations of torture and ill-treatment. Section 2.3.2: Reporting and Accountability Use of force recording and internal oversight: The Basic Principles (Principle 11f) note that there should be a ‘system of reporting whenever law enforcement officials use firearms in the performance of their duty’. They also note, moreover, that ‘effective reporting and review procedures’ should be implemented not only around the use of firearms but also whenever the use of force has caused injury or death (Principle 22). The Nelson Mandela Rules (Rule 8) also stress the importance of reporting, noting that prisoner files should include ‘requests and complaints, including allegations of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, unless they are of a confidential nature’ and ‘information on the circumstances and causes of any injuries or death’. The SPT (2013) notes that ‘a register of the use of any means of coercion, including non-lethal means, should be kept’, and the CPT stress that ‘a record should be kept of every instance of the use of force against prisoners’ (1992: 53). Similarly, the UNODC/ OHCHR Resource book (2017: 153) notes that it is ‘considered good practice to report any use of force, including incidents that involve a “show of force”, such as the pointing of a firearm, or taser, at any person’. This includes the use of restraints, with a provision that ‘where law enforcement officials apply handcuffs, they have to report it afterwards, and also account for the period of time the handcuffs were applied before their eventual removal’ (2017: 83). Article 12 of the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment and Punishment notes that ‘each State Party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed in any territory under its jurisdiction’. Furthermore, the CPT (2017: 5) recommend that ‘a specific register should be established to record all instances of recourse to means of restraint (including chemical restraint). This should supplement the records contained within the patient’s personal medical file. The 20 entries in the register should include the time at which the measure began and ended; the circumstances of the case; the reasons for resorting to the measure; the name of the doctor who ordered or approved it; and an account of any injuries sustained by patients or staff. Patients should be entitled to attach comments to the register, and should be informed of this entitlement; at their request, they should receive a copy of the full entry’ . Supervisory oversight. The UNODC/OHCHR Resource book (2017: 153) further notes the importance of having ‘detailed forms to systematize the reporting process, enabling officers to describe as accurately as possible what has occurred and why’, and ensuring that each incident report is ‘reviewed by the supervising officer, who should always formulate an opinion on the use of force: was the force applied justified or is (disciplinary or other) action required? Are there lessons to be learned? Are there any needs for training that should be identified?’ Data collection and analysis As well as analysis of individual incidents, the UNODC/ OHCHR Resource book highlights the importance of data collection and analysis, and is worth quoting at length. It notes that: ‘the data of all the individual incidents where force or firearms have been used, including from complaints about use of force and firearms, and otherwise, need to be collected to allow meaningful monitoring of use-of-force practice, through further analysis and establish trends and patterns. It is recommended to collect the data regarding use of force and deaths and serious injuries that are the result of law enforcement action, and complaints about the same, at a central level, under the authority of an independent body, rather than an internal unit, as they may be put under pressure to give a more favourable representation of the agency than the facts merit. Central data collection also facilitates central data analysis. The data should provide answers to questions such as how many incidents of force there have been; how many people died as a result of police action; how many got seriously injured; and how many of these incidents were unlawful, providing statistical data that are crucial to developing appropriate interventions to remedy overreliance on force or otherwise abusive use of force, where applicable’. Independent review of individual incidents: International standards go beyond mere reporting, however, and also stress the importance of review and accountability mechanisms, including by independent bodies and processes. The Basic Principles (Principle 22) note that, in cases of death and serious injury or other grave consequences, a detailed report shall be sent promptly to the competent authorities. They also note that ‘persons affected by the use of force and firearms or their legal representatives shall have access to an independent process, including a judicial process’ (Principle 23), whilst the UN Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty (Rule 57) state that, following the death of juveniles in detention, ‘there should be an independent inquiry into