for the case to be filed away on the ground not that there was no basis to the allegations but that those responsible had not been identified.”120 ff confidential and accurate medical (preferably forensic) physical and psychological examinations of alleged victims. These should be carried out by independent and adequately trained personnel capable of identifying the causes of injuries and their consistency with the allegations; ff other medical evidence, including records from places of detention and health care services; The Istanbul Protocol emphasises the importance of physical and psychological examination of alleged victims, diagnostic tests, and uniform documentation:121 “A medical examination should be undertaken regardless of the length of time since the torture, but if it is alleged to have happened within the past six weeks, such an examination should be arranged urgently before acute signs fade. The examination should include an assessment of the need for treatment of injuries and illnesses, psychological help, advice and follow-up (see chapter V for a description of the physical examination and forensic evaluation). A psychological appraisal of the alleged torture victim is always necessary and may be part of the physical examination, or where there are no physical signs, may be performed by itself (see chapter VI for a description of the psychological evaluation).”122 In a similar vein, the judgments of the Strasbourg Court and the findings of CPT visit reports illuminate the requirements of those bodies: “The Court further reiterates that proper medical examinations are an essential safeguard against ill-treatment. The forensic doctor must enjoy formal and de facto independence, have been provided with specialised training and been allocated a mandate which is broad in scope (see Akkoç v. Turkey, nos. 22947/93 and 22948/93, § 55 and § 118, ECHR 2000‑X). When the doctor writes a report after the medical examination of a person who alleges having been ill-treated, it is extremely important that the doctor states the degree of consistency with the history of ill-treatment [...]”123 120. Labita v. Italy, Judgment of 6 April 2000, application no. 26772/95, para. 72. See also Bati and Others v. Turkey, Judgment of 3 June 2004, applications nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, para. 142; Barabanshchikov v. Russia, Judgment of 8 January 2009, application no. 36220/02, para. 44. 121. See the Istanbul Protocol, at chapters V-VI, annexes II-IV. 122. The Istanbul Protocol, para 104. 123. Barabanshchikov v. Russia, Judgment of 8 January 2009, application no. 36220/02, para. 59. Effective investigation of ill-treatment – Guidelines ► Page 48