examples include situations featuring potentially discriminatory motives or destruction of property.140 Moreover, when defining the scope of the investigation, the authorities must take into account the various factors contributing to the severity of ill-treatment and carefully examine each one in turn. This approach is consistent with the Court’s relative approach to assessing severity of suffering: “[I]t depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical or mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim, etc.”141 The non-exhaustive inventory set out in the Guideline points to two types of causes that contribute to levels of suffering: objective factors, such as duration, inflicted injuries and subjective factors, which relate to personal characteristics of the victim.142 4.3 Promptness 4.3.1 Investigations and eventual legal proceedings must be conducted in a prompt and reasonably expeditious manner. Guideline 4.3.1 acknowledges that evidence may lose its value or become impossible to recover after a period of time, as is echoed in all the relevant international instruments, CPT guidance,143 the Istanbul Protocol144 and the CEHRC Opinion.145 The most detailed guidance on this issue, however, can be found in the Court’s jurisprudence: “…[T]he investigation must be expedient. In cases under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, where the effectiveness of the official investigation was at issue, the Court often assessed whether the authorities reacted promptly to the complaints at the relevant time (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 133 et seq., ECHR 2000‑IV). Consideration was given to the starting of investigations, delays in taking statements (see Timurtaş v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, § 89, ECHR 2000‑VI; and 140. See Guidelines 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 and related comments above. 141. Selmouni v. France, Court’s Judgment of 28 July 1999, application no. 25803/94, para. 100. 142. In Aydin v. Turkey, the Court took into account the gender and youth of the applicant. It found in another case that the unlawfulness of the individual’s detention, despite its relatively short duration, had exacerbated his mental anguish and suffering whilst he was detained in unacceptable conditions: Trepashkin v. Russia, Court’s Judgment of 19 July 2007, application no. 36898/03, para. 94. 143. 14th General Report on the CPT’s activities, CPT/Inf (2004) 28 para. 35. 144. See paras. 14, 83, 179. 145. CEHRC’s Opinion, paras. 70-73. Explanatory note ► Page 53