PART B – International standards in the Istanbul Protocol Ombudsman institutions have the power to receive and investigate complaints about police torture, the mandate of most is confined to dealing with complaints about public maladministration.185 The only exception is perhaps in Latin America where so-called Ombudsman offices have been set up to effectively fulfil the role of police oversight 186 bodies. Administrative proceedings Examples of administrative remedies, which might be relevant to a victim of torture, could include an application to a compensation commission set up to provide compensation to victims of violent crimes, or a submission to a police complaints authority. Administrative proceedings do not necessarily take place before a regular judge. Instead they will often involve decision-making by expert tribunals, or officials with special expertise or responsibility for a particular subject area. Disciplinary proceedings There are typically disciplinary proceedings for those internal to the police, the military, other branches of the security forces and the state administration. These are non-judicial proceedings in which a case is considered by a superior or superiors of the public official. A complaint can be lodged with a superior or with the appropriate oversight body, but the decision to initiate proceedings may only be taken internally. The types of sanctions which may be imposed in disciplinary proceedings are normally related to the job, and could include withholding pay, temporary suspension from work, reassignment to another post or even dismissal. Although there can be several remedies available at the national level, to be effective, domestic remedies need to comply with international standards. In other words, torture victims should have access to effective complaint mechanisms; authorities are required to start a prompt and impartial criminal investigation, and where there is 43 sufficient evidence, authorities are required to prosecute the alleged perpetrator and if found guilty, to punish him/her accordingly. As well, to guarantee the efficiency of the process, there needs to be procedural opportunities to challenge the steps and decisions taken by authorities during criminal proceedings (e.g. when closing an investigation or when dropping prosecutions). For example, in countries with a common law system, it is sometimes possible to start a private prosecution when the police decides not to prosecute. Similarly, within the civil law tradition, where the investigative police is normally supervised by the judiciary, it is possible to challenge a decision to close an investigation or not start a prosecution, before an investigative judge. In some countries, courts have the possibility to order compensation or other remedial measures against the convicted person in criminal trials. But this cannot substitute the right of torture victims to civil redress. Notwithstanding the legal systems, victims have a right under international law to bring a civil claim against the alleged perpetrators and/or the State, and this right is independent of any criminal prosecutions or their results. Although there are different domestic legal systems, within its domestic procedures, States need to afford effective access to justice and adequate reparations for victims of torture proportional to the harm suffered (in187 cluding rehabilitation and compensation). So for example, a national human rights commission may serve as a supervisory body to guarantee the impartiality of police investigations, but it cannot substitute criminal proceedings. The same applies to administrative boards, where even though victims of crimes can claim compensation, these boards cannot substitute the right to bring civil proceedings before a court.