role should also be fulfilled by other mechanisms and institutions, the investigative authorities are well-placed to identify measures geared towards the prevention of future cases of ill-treatment. IV. Measuring effectiveness: the key criteria Whilst the terminology used by the Strasbourg Court and other international bodies and instruments may vary, 100 the relevant criteria include independence and impartiality, thoroughness, promptness, adequacy of competence, victim involvement and public scrutiny. 4.1 Independence and impartiality 4.1.1 Officials involved in conducting investigations and all decision-­ makers cannot be part of the same public authority as the officials who are the subject of the investigation and must be otherwise independent from those implicated in the facts being investigated. Independence is crucial to effective investigation and to maintaining the confidence of the alleged victim and of the general public.101 The case-law of the Strasbourg Court is highly developed in its analysis of the independence of investigations, and the obligation of independence can cover anyone making a decision during investigations or conducting them (including those assigned to particular investigative steps,102 forensic doctors,103 supervising prosecutors,104 and special bodies105). 100. See the 14th General Report on the CPT’s activities, CPT/Inf (2004) 28 paras. 31-36; Istanbul Protocol, paras. 79-82; the CEHRC’s Opinion, paras. 62-79. 101. See the 14th General Report on the CPT’s activities, CPT/Inf (2004) 28, para. 32; Istanbul Protocol, para. 74; Istanbul Principles, para. 2; CEHRC’s Opinion, paras. 63-66. 102. See Mikheev v. Russia, Judgment of 26 January 2006, application no. 77617/01, para. 116. The Court determined a lack of independence of police officer assigned with the task of finding witness. 103. Thus, the Court requires that forensic doctor must enjoy formal and de facto independence, provided with specialised training and allocated a mandate which is broad in scope. Barabanshchikov v. Russia, Judgment of 8 January 2009, application no. 36220/02, para. 62 104. See Ramsahai and Others v. the Netherlands, Judgment of 15 May 2007, application no. 52391/99, paras. 62-63; Barabanshchikov v. Russia, Judgment of 8 January 2009, application no. 36220/02, paras. 62-63. 105. See İpek v. Turkey, Judgment of 17 February 2004, application no. 25760/94, para. 207. Explanatory note ► Page 43