3.1.5 Decisions to terminate or to refuse to initiate investigations into illtreatment can only be taken by an independent, competent authority upon thorough and prompt consideration of all the relevant facts. Such decisions should be subject to appropriate scrutiny and challengeable by means of a public and adversarial judicial review process. A determination that an allegation is groundless is tantamount to a refusal to investigate and cuts the alleged victim off from the rights corollary to the obligation to investigate. Such a determination must therefore stand up to the highest degree of scrutiny. 3.2 Principal purposes of investigations 3.2.1 Effective investigation requires genuine efforts to be made to properly establish the relevant facts and, where appropriate, to identify and punish those responsible for ill-treatment. The Guidelines envisage two main purposes of investigation: to establish the facts and, if necessary, to punish perpetrators. They recognise that the facts may not be borne out in all cases, and that at times there will be insufficient proof to hold perpetrators responsible.96 However, the authorities must make a genuine attempt to achieve results. This Guideline reflects the standard language used by the Court in this area: “An obligation to investigate “is not an obligation of result, but of means”: not every investigation should necessarily be successful or come to a conclusion which coincides with the claimant’s account of events; however, it should in principle be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts of the case and, if the allegations prove to be true, to the identification and punishment of those responsible. Thus, the investigation of serious allegations of ill-treatment must be thorough. That means that the authorities must always make a serious attempt to find out what happened and should not rely on hasty or ill-founded conclusions to close their investigation or as the basis of their decisions.”97 3.2.2 Investigating authorities could also be tasked with identifying and implementing measures to prevent recurrences of ill-treatment. The investigating authorities’ role in implementing preventive measures is highlighted by both the Istanbul Principles98 and the CEHRC.99 Although this 96. See also Guidelines 3.1.1 and 3.1.5. 97. Barabanshchikov v. Russia, Judgment of 8 January 2009, application no. 36220/02, para. 54. 98. Principle 1.b of the Istanbul Principles. 99. CEHRC’s Opinion, para. 22. Effective investigation of ill-treatment – Guidelines ► Page 42