GUIDE ON ANTI-TORTURE LEGISLATION Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the Istanbul Protocol)127 is a good basis for any investigation into allegations of torture and ill-treatment. The Istanbul Protocol provides a set of guidelines for documenting and investigating allegations of torture and ill-treatment and for reporting to investigative bodies or to the judiciary. In the Maldives’ Act on the Prohibition and Prevention of Torture, any victim who files a complaint to the [human rights] commission has a right to have it investigated in a non-biased and impartial manner with reasonable promptness.128 In the Philippines, section 9 of the Anti-Torture Act clarifies this obligation to open investigations into allegations of torture: “A victim of torture shall have the following rights in the institution of a criminal complaint for torture: (a) To have a prompt and an impartial investigation by the CHR [Commission on Human Rights] and by agencies of government concerned such as the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO), the PNP, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and the AFP. A prompt investigation shall mean a maximum period of sixty (60) working days from the time a complaint for torture is filed within which an investigation report and/ or resolution shall be completed and made available.“ 129 In the Prevention and Prohibition of Torture Act of Uganda, as soon as a complaint of torture is made, “a prompt investigation into the complaint shall be conducted (…).�� 130 128 129 130 18. The Convention requires States parties to prosecute alleged perpetrators of torture, or extradite them The Convention requires States to prosecute any persons alleged to have committed torture provided that they do not extradite them.131 One of the main objectives of the Convention is to combat torture and to fight impunity: prosecuting perpetrators of torture and ill-treatment is therefore a natural consequence of the obligation to establish jurisdiction over the crime of torture. The Convention addresses the obligation to prosecute or extradite in article 7: the Convention leaves States the possibility to prosecute or extradite alleged offenders of torture, but establishes the duty to do one of the two in any case of alleged torture. However, the Committee has clarified that prosecution is not dependant on an extradition request: “the obligation to prosecute the alleged perpetrator of acts of torture does not depend on the prior existence of a request for his extradition”.132 The choice between prosecuting and extraditing a person therefore only exists when an extradition request is made. Otherwise, States are expected to investigate and prosecute those persons. Extradition is at all times subject to the prohibition on refoulement (see Chapter 7 below). 127 UN Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights, Professional Training Series N°8/Rev. 1, Istanbul Protocol: Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, available at http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/ training8Rev1en.pdf (last accessed February 2016). Maldives, Act on the Prohibition and Prevention of Torture 2013, op. cit. 3, article 18(a). 128 Philippines’ Anti-Torture Act of 2009, op. cit. 4, section 9(a). 129 Uganda, the Prevention and Prohibition of Torture Act, op. cit. 28, section 11. 130 131 132 40 Article 7 of the Convention. CAT, Guengueng et al. v. Senegal, Communication N°181/2001, UN Doc. CAT/C/36/D/181/2001 of 19 May 2006, § 9.7.