81. After resolution of a complaint five principal courses of action may follow: ff no further action; ff criminal proceedings may be brought against a police officer; ff disciplinary proceedings may be brought against a police officer; ff police management may take informal action against an officer; or ff changes may be made to policing practice in consideration of the lessons learned. The complainant should be informed in writing and orally of the resolution of his or her complaint. 82. The expectation that criminal or disciplinary proceedings will be brought against a police officer against whom there is evidence of misconduct is an important protection against police impunity,255 and essential for public trust and confidence in the police complaints system.256 Police officers are liable in criminal and disciplinary proceedings independently of complaints investigations and the rights and safeguards available to them are beyond the scope of this Opinion. This is based on the assumption that officers are subject to standard criminal justice procedures, including due process safeguards, and that discipline is a police service responsibility. 83. One model for the conduct of criminal and disciplinary proceedings against police officers arising from complaints is for them to be handled by standard criminal justice or police disciplinary processes. Where there is evidence that may give rise to proceedings the IPCB should forward its investigation report to the criminal prosecution authority to decide whether to bring criminal proceedings, and to the police to decide whether to bring disciplinary proceedings. 84. The prosecution authority and police should have regard to the recommendations contained in the complaints investigator’s report when determining whether or not to bring criminal or disciplinary proceedings. The prosecution authority, police and IPCB should give reasons for all decisions relating to criminal and disciplinary proceedings for which they are responsible.257 255. The CPT Standards, Chapter IX., § 31. 256. See, for example, Guja v. Moldova (Application no. 14277/04), Judgment 12 February 2008, § 88. 257. See, for example, McKerr v. UK (Application no. 28883/95), Judgment 4 May 2001, § 157. Appendices ► Page 101