PART B – International standards in the Istanbul Protocol violations.176 In the case of serious human rights violations, like torture and other forms of ill-treatment, remedies need to be judicial.177 As explained by the UN Human Rights Committee, “administrative remedies cannot be deemed to constitute adequate and effective remedies[…], in the event of particular seri178 ous violations of human rights”. Furthermore, the individual right of access to court for the determination of civil rights and obligations regarding serious human rights violations is a fundamental part of international human right law.179 By stating that remedies need to be judicial in nature, international jurisprudence refers to the type of remedy that States need to afford for victims of grave human rights violations. For example, in the case of torture, States need to afford: • An effective remedy for victims to start a criminal investigation leading to the prosecution and punishment of the perpetrators by a judicial body and • The right of victims to claim reparations before a judicial court. In torture cases, non-judicial remedies, such as administrative or other remedies, are not considered sufficient to fulfil States’ obligations under international law. This means that even if a torture victim wishes to apply for compensation through an administrative procedure, he/she should have the right, in law and practice, to bring civil claim against the individual and State in a judicial court.180 Similarly, remedies whereby detainees can challenge the legality of their detention, need to be judicial — in other words before a judicial authority (such as habeas corpus and amparo).181 This type of remedy is also an important tool in combating torture because often the judge will be the first public official unrelated to the place of detention 41 that a detainee comes into contact with. Consequently, it may be the first opportunity for a detainee to raise allegations of torture and for an investigation into these allegations to be initiated. Even in the absence of an express allegation of ill-treatment, the judge should request a forensic medical examination whenever there are grounds to believe that a person brought before him/her could 182 have been subjected to torture. In equal terms, provisional orders or injunctions are important safeguards against torture. Where a person is believed to be at risk during detention and/or interrogation, it is possible to apply to a court for an injunction against the public officials in question. The issue of effective remedies presents a particular challenge in times of transition following dictatorship or conflict.183 Most societies coming out of a period of mass violations, even with the best of will, will have weak legal infrastructure, competing demands for scarce resources, and a vast number of victims with a range of rights and needs. In response to these challenges, some States have developed policies and specific administrative programmes, such as Truth and Reconciliation Commissions, to deal with reparation for mass claims. However, the right to an effective remedy, including judicial remedies, clearly signifies that such reparation mechanisms can only ever complement rather than substitute access to courts. Ideally, the design of administrative reparation programmes will be sufficiently inclusive, responsive to the wishes and needs of victims, transparent, easy to use, efficient and seen as just, that the advantages of using the programme will outweigh the prospect of gaining reparation before the courts or other established mechanisms.