Tekin v. Turkey, judgment of 9 June 1998, Reports 1998‑IV, § 67), and the length of time taken during the initial investigation (see Indelicato v. Italy, no. 31143/96, § 37, 18 October 2001).”146 Timeliness is essential to the effectiveness of medical examinations147 and to the usefulness and reliability of witness testimony, as is repeatedly underlined by the Court: “Thirdly, a number of investigative measures were taken very belatedly. The report on the forensic medical examination of the applicant, for instance, was dated 26 October 1998, that is, more than five weeks after the alleged ill-treatment. The police officers suspected of ill-treatment were brought before the applicant for identification only about two years after the incident. The applicant’s mother was questioned only in 2000, and Dr M from Hospital no. 33 not until 2001, despite having been among the first witnesses to see the applicant after the accident. The investigator did not question personnel and patients in Hospital no. 39 until January 2000 (with the exception of B and Dr K, who had been questioned during the initial investigation). Finally, the applicant’s psychiatric examination was carried out only in 2001, despite the fact that his mental condition was advanced by the authorities as the main explanation for his attempted suicide, and as the basis for the discontinuation of the proceedings.”148 The Guideline also implies the need for promptness during the period from the initial investigation to any eventual legal proceedings. It does not prescribe time limits, but the standards followed should reflect the Court’s approach under Article 5(3) of the ECHR, whereby the Court interprets the concept of “reasonable time” as requiring “special diligence” and “particular expedition”.149 To a large extent, the assessment will rely upon the circumstances of the case.150 4.3.2 Promptness is a key to maintaining public confidence. The Strasbourg Court has regularly linked the need for promptness to the need to maintain the confidence and support of the public. This was made clear in its judgment in Bati and Others: 146. Mikheev v. Russia, Court’s Judgment of 26 January 2006, application no. 77617/01, para. 109. 147. See para. 104 of the Istanbul Protocol. 148. Mikheev v. Russia, Judgment of 26 January 2006, application no. 77617/01, para. 113. See also para 114. 149. See mutatis mutandi Wemhoff v. Germany, Judgment of 27 June 1968, application no. 2122/64, para. 17. 150. See mutatis mutandi Scott v. Spain, Judgment of 18 December 1996, application no. 21335/93, para. 17. Effective investigation of ill-treatment – Guidelines ► Page 54