5. Independent Police Complaints Body 29. An independent and effective complaints system is essential for securing and maintaining public trust and confidence in the police, and will serve as a fundamental protection against ill-treatment and misconduct. An independent police complaints body (IPCB) should form a pivotal part of such a system. 30. Five principles of effective police complaints investigation have been developed in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights on Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR: 1. Independence: there should not be institutional or hierarchical connections between the investigators and the officer complained against and there should be practical independence;214 2. Adequacy: the investigation should be capable of gathering evidence to determine whether police behaviour complained of was unlawful and to identify and punish those responsible;215 3. Promptness: the investigation should be conducted promptly and in an expeditious manner in order to maintain confidence in the rule of law;216 4. Public scrutiny: procedures and decision-making should be open and transparent in order to ensure accountability;217 and 5. Victim involvement: the complainant should be involved in the complaints process in order to safeguard his or her legitimate interests.218 31. Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR are fundamental provisions and enshrine basic values of the democratic societies making up the Council of Europe.219 There are two principal purposes of the five ECHR effective police complaints investigation principles. On the one hand, they have been developed to ensure that an individual has an effective remedy for an alleged violation of Article 2 214. See, for example, Ramsahai v. The Netherlands (Application no. 52391/99), Judgment 15 May 2007; Bati v. Turkey (Application nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00), Judgment 3 June 2004. 215. See, for example, Nachova v. Bulgaria (Application nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98), Judgment 6 July 2005; Aksoy v. Turkey (100/1995/606/694), Judgment 18 December 1996. 216. See, for example, Isayeva v. Russia (Application nos. 5794/00, 57948/00 and 57949/00), Judgment 24 February 2005; Aydin v. Turkey (57/1996/676/866), Judgment 25 September 1997. 217. See, for example, Ognyanova v. Bulgaria (Application no. 46317/99), Judgment 23 February 2006; Chitayev v. Russia (Application no. 59334/00), Judgment 18 January 2007. 218. See, for example, McKerr v. UK (Application no. 28883/95), Judgment 4 May 2001. 219. See, for example, McCann v. UK (17/1994/464/545), Judgment 20 February 1995; Selmouni v. France (Application no. 25803/94), Judgment 28 July 1999. Appendices ► Page 89