64 A practical guide to the Istanbul Protocol – for lawyers 99. José Vicente and Amado Villafañe Chaparro, Luís Napoleón Torres Crespo, Angel María Torres Arroyo and Antonio Hugues Chaparro Torres v. Colombia, Communication No. 612/1995 (14 June 1994), UN Doc. CCPR/C/60/D/612/1995; Wayne Spence v. Jamaica, Communication No. 599/1994, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/57/D/599/1994 (1996); Stephens v. Jamaica, Communication No. 373/1989, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/55/D/373/1989 (1995); Katombe L. Tshishimbi v. Zaire, Communication No. 542/1993, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/53/D/542/1993(1996). 100. Askoy v. Turkey, supra, para. 95; Aydin v. Turkey, (supra, para. 103; and Kaya v. Turkey, supra, para. 89. 101. Timurtas v. Turkey, supra, para.88. 102. Assenov & Others v. Bulgaria, supra, para. 104. 103. Akkoç v. Turkey, supra, para.99. 104. Bámaca Velásquez Case, Judgment of February 22, 2002, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., (Ser. C) No. 91 (2002), (Merits, para.212 and Reparation, para.73). 105. Blake Case, Interpretation of the Judgment of Reparations (art. 67 American Convention on Human Rights), Judgment of October 1, 1999, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (Ser. C) No. 57 (1999), Para.65. See also, Paniagua Morales et al. Case, Judgment of March 8, 1998, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (Ser. C) No. 37 (1998), para.91. 106. Velasquez Rodrigues, supra, para. 176. 107. Ibid., para.117. 108. See, for example, Salman v. Turkey supra, para. 106; Tanrikulu v Turkey, supra, para.109; Gül v. Turkey (2002) 34 E.H.R.R. 28, para.89. 109. The Torture Reporting Handbook by Camille Giffard, Human Rights Centre, Essex University, UK, 2000. 110. Either the examining magistrate in certain common law countries, or the investigating judge in civil law systems. See separate section on Judges below for a fuller discussion of their role. See, in this respect, UK Home Office, New Police Complaints System, Thematic Paper No.10, Recording of Complaints and Conduct Matters, August 2003. In several countries, complainants may appeal against the decision not to institute proceedings, e.g. the Russian Federation, Georgia, CAT/C/48/ Add.1, 2 June 2000 para.104; Kyrgyzstan, UN Doc. CAT/C/42/Add.1, 25 August 1999, para.88 and Republic of Korea, UN Doc. CAT/C/32/Add.1, 30 May 1996, para.194. 113. Depending on the country, these initial determinations may be subject to prior internal review and open to external challenges by those who lodged the complaint. 114. Art 12 of the UN Convention against Torture. 115. See e.g. reports of the Special Rapporteur on Torture following his missions to Pakistan, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1997/7/Add.2, 15 October 1996, para.86. 116. See e.g. REDRESS, Taking Complaints of Torture Seriously, Rights of Victims and Responsibilities of Authorities, November 2004, p.22. 117. E.g. the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. 118. E.g. the Independent Police Complaints Council of Hong Kong is mandated to (inter alia) monitor and if appropriate review the handling by the Police of complaints by the public and to identify faults in police procedures: http://www.ipcc.gov.hk/en/ aboutus_01.htm; the Police Complaints Authority of Trinidad and Tobago may monitor the investigation of complaints by the Police Complaints Division to ensure that the investigation is conducted impartially: http://www.pca.gov.tt/about/default.asp. 119. See Birgit Lindsnaes, Lone Lindholt and Kristine Yigen, National Human Rights Institutions, Articles and working papers, The Danish Centre for Human Rights, 2001, Appendix III, p.228. 120. REDRESS, Taking Complaints of Torture Seriously, Rights of Victims and Responsibilities of Authorities, November 2004, p.42. 111. As is the case in Ireland; see e.g. section 4 (2) of the Garda Siochana (Complaints) Act, 1986 in Ireland. 121. See e.g. National Human Rights Commission of India: http://nhrc.nic.in/ 112. Complainants have the right to challenge the non-recording of a complaint according to new procedures in England and Wales. 123. Ibid. 122. See Istanbul Protocol, para.77. 124. Ibid., para.103.