62 A practical guide to the Istanbul Protocol – for lawyers 4 (1988), para 176; Affirmed in El Amparo Case, Judgment of 14 September 1996, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (Ser. C) No. 28 (1996), para. 61 of the judgment on reparations; Suárez Rosero Case, Judgment of 20 January 1999, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (Ser. C) No. 44 (1999), para 79. 66. General Recommendations of the Special Rapporteur, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2003/68, 17 December 2002, para. 26 (k). 67. The CAT uses the word “prompt” while the Inter-American Convention uses “immediate”. 68. In Halimi-Nedzibi v. Austria, Communication No. 8/1991, 18 November 1993 the complainant raised the issue of torture with an investigating judge on 5 December 1988. The investigation into the alleged torture was only commenced in March 1990. The Committee against Torture found that this was an unreasonable delay. In Encarnacion Blanco Abad v. Spain, Communication 56/1996, February 1996, the complainant alleged during her first arraignment on terrorism-related charges that she had been tortured. It took another 15 days before the complaint was taken up by a judge and another four days before an inquiry was commenced. The investigation then took 10 months, with gaps of between one and three months between statements on forensic evidence reports. The Committee found this too to be an unacceptable delay. See also Amnesty International: Combating Torture: A Manual for Action, Amnesty International publication, AI Index: ACT 40/001/2003, June 2003, p. 175. (Combating Torture). 69. Without, however, specifying what exactly constitutes “prompt.” See, for example, Concluding Observations : Egypt, UN Doc. CAT/C/XXIX/Misc.4, 20 November 2002, para. 5(b). 70. See Human Rights Committee General Comment 20, Concerning Prohibition of Torture And Cruel Treatment or Punishment (Art. 7) 10/3/1992, para 14; Aksoy v. Turkey, Aksoy v. Turkey (1997) 23 E.H.R.R. 553 ECHR. 71. Report of the Special Rapporteur of 23 December 2003, E/supra, at para. 39; General Recommendations of the Special Rapporteur on Torture UN Doc. E/CN.4/2003/68 at para. 26(i). 72. Adopted by General Assembly resolution 43/173 of 9 December 1988. Principle 33 (1). 73. Rule 36 (4). 74. Stephens v. Jamaica, Communication No. 373/1989, UN Doc. CCPR/C/55/D/373/1989 (1995), para.9.2. See also Irvine Reynolds v. Jamaica, Communication No. 587/1994, UN Doc. CCPR/C/59/D/587/1994 (1997) and Wayne Spence v. Jamaica, Communication No. 599/1994, UN Doc. CCPR/ C/57/D/599/1994 (1996). 75. See e.g. Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/72/PRK, 27 August 2001, para.15. 76. Labita v. Italy, Application no. 26772/95 (unreported judgment of 6 April 2000), para. 131. 77. Çiçek v. Turkey (2003) 37 E.H.R.R. 20 ECHR, para.149. Timurtas v. Turkey (2001) 33 E.H.R.R. 6 ECHR, para.89. See also Tekin v. Turkey (2001) 31 E.H.R.R. 4 ECHR, 67; and Labita v. Italy, supra, para. 133 Tas v. Turkey (2001) 33 E.H.R.R. 15 at paras. 70-72 where the public prosecutor did not commence an investigation until two years after the incident. 78. Assenov & Others v. Bulgaria, supra. 79. Indelicato v. Italy (2002) 35 E.H.R.R. 40 ECHR, para.37. 80. Cantoral Benavides v. Peru, Judgment of August 18, 2000, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., (Ser. C) No.69 (2000). 81. David Sloss The Domestication of International Human Rights: Non-Self-Executing Declarations and Human Rights Treaties in 24 International Yale Journal of International Law, 1999 129, at p. 143. See, also, Annex to A/54/426 (Report of Sir Nigel Rodley to the General Assembly, in accordance with General Assembly Resolution 53/139): “Principles on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment”, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2001/66, 25 January 2001, para 1310; Principles 7 and 33 of the Body of Principles. 82. See the final report of Mr. L.M. Singhvi, then Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, to the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities in 1985 (E/CN.4/