PART B – International standards in the Istanbul Protocol • Torture victims, their lawyer and other interested parties should have access to hearings and any information relevant to the investigation and must be entitled to present evidence • Witnesses should be permitted to be represented by a lawyer if they are likely to be harmed by the inquiry (for example, if their testimony could entail criminal charges) • The investigative mechanism should effectively question witnesses and parties to the proceedings should be allowed to submit written questions • Detainees should have the right to obtain an alternate medical evaluation by a qualified health professional and this alternate evaluation should be accepted as admissible evidence by national courts. The Istanbul Protocol also outlines minimum procedural standards for investigations that take into account the rights of the victim, such as the right to be informed of the nature of the investigation and how statements or evidence offered by the victim may be used. It also sets out the type of evidence that investigators should try to obtain from the victim. Where possible, interviewers should interview the alleged perpetrators and obtain medical evidence (physical and psychological), circumstantial evidence, and witness statements (ensuring safeguards and techniques for the safety of witnesses). a. The conduct of investigations: best practices This section on best practices focuses on the role and conduct of various official and judicial bodies in investigations. It is important for lawyers to understand best practices with a view to demanding from the bodies concerned investigative steps in line with such standards, either where no such steps have been taken or where measures taken 27 have fallen short of what is required. It is also essential for lawyers to be aware of these standards when conducting their own “alternative” or “complementary” investigations, which should reflect best practices in order to enhance credibility and reliability of any evidence collected. Equally, the best practices outlined below may provide guidance to lawyers and others for any advocacy campaigns aimed at reforming legislation, procedures and the practice of investigations in torture cases so as to bring them in line with international standards. b. Overview of the role of various investigating bodies Investigations may be carried out by a number of different bodies depending on the legal system of the State concerned. Victims may lodge a complaint with the police, the public prosecutor, or a judge.110 It may also be possible to complain to a national human rights commission, ombudsman or police oversight body (see below). Registering a complaint is of critical importance as it ensures that there is an accessible and reliable record of the allegation, and this will form the basis from which the next steps may be taken. The complaints process should have the following characteristics: • Accessible procedure • No fear of retribution • The process should not require identification of the perpetrator or detailed supporting evidence (but not be manifestly unfounded) • Complainants should be given a copy of their complaint, including the date and name of the recording officer111 • Complainants should have the right to challenge a decision not to record a complaint or to compel an authority to forward it to the investigating authorities.112