The same approach is adopted by the CPT: “Moreover, even if the prosecutors formally responsible for preliminary investigations into allegations of police ill-treatment can be said to be independent from the police officers dealing with such complaints, the same cannot be said of the police officers who actually conduct those investigations. In a number of cases examined by the delegation, the investigating criminal police officers were employed at the same police establishment as the police officers who were subject of the investigation. In the CPT’s view, it is axiomatic that such investigations should at least be conducted by police officers who are not attached to the same police establishment (for example, police officers attached to a general police inspectorate or an internal affairs department)”.110 The relationship between different officials and bodies can therefore be complex and require detailed examination. Thus, it applies to instances when institutionally independent officials rely heavily on information provided by those implicated or investigations carried out by the subdivisions they belong to. “However, the Court finds it conflicting with the relevant principles of an effective investigation that the TCPO [Tbilisi City Prosecutor’s Office] relied heavily on the information provided by the RDPO [Rustavi District Prosecutor’s Office] and Rustavi police officers directly or indirectly implicated in the impugned events. . .”111 Often, investigators may also have a close working relationship with a particular police force. This was a concern in a Strasbourg case concerning military prosecutors in Romania. The investigators were serving officers in the same military structure as the police who were being investigated.112 4.1.3 Officials involved in conducting investigations and all decision-­ makers must be impartial. In particular, they should not be involved in investigations or decisions regarding the alleged victims of the case in question. Although the international instruments do not elaborate in detail upon the obvious requirement of impartiality of investigators, the importance of this requirement is clearly illustrated by the jurisprudence of the Strasbourg Court.113 Moreover, investigators have often been found to have a dual role 110. CPT’s Report on the visit to Albania carried out from 13 to 18 July 2003, CPT/Inf (2006) 22, para. 40. 111. Gharibashvili v. Georgia, Judgment of 29 July 2008, application no. 11830/03, para. 73. 112. See Barbu Anghelescu v. Romania, Judgment of 5 October 2004, application no. 46430/99, para. 67. 113. See 97 members of the Gldani Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses and 4 Others v. Georgia, Judgment of 3 May 2007, application no. 71156/01, para. 117. Explanatory note ��� Page 45