The CPT is equally critical of informal barriers to effective investigation, such as the wearing of masks by police or prison officers. These have the same practical effect as formal legal obstacles: “34. […] This practice should be strictly controlled and only used in exceptional cases which are duly justified; it will rarely, if ever, be justified in a prison context.”155 4.4.3 Investigative bodies should have the power to suspend from service or from particular duties persons under investigation. 4.4.4 Investigative bodies should be able to apply protective measures to ensure that alleged victims and other persons involved in the investigation are not intimidated or otherwise dissuaded from participating in investigations. The Guidelines do not call for those suspected of ill-treatment to be placed in custody, but investigative bodies should at least be entitled to suspend them and apply other measures during the investigation. The failure to suspend suspects has been criticised by the Court: “The Court also underlines the importance of the suspension from duty of the agent under investigation or on trial as well as his dismissal if he is convicted (see Conclusions and Recommendations of the United Nations Committee against Torture: Turkey, 27 May 2003, CAT/C/CR/30/5).”156 The Istanbul Protocol provides that such measures should protect those involved and those carrying out the investigation: “Those potentially implicated in torture or ill-treatment shall be removed from any position of control or power, whether direct or indirect, over complainants, witnesses and their families, as well as those conducting the investigation.”157 The Protocol also aims to protect them “from violence, threats of violence or any other form of intimidation that may arise pursuant to the investigation”.158 In addition, it provides a detailed outline of other elements of the relevant framework and supporting strategies.159 155. 14th General Report on the CPT’s activities, CPT/Inf (2004) 28, para. 34. The CPT also criticised the blindfolding of detainees, another measure that can prevent the identification of those responsible for ill-treatment. 156. Yaman v. Turkey, Judgment of 2 November 2004, application no. 32446/96, para. 55. See also Bekos and Koutropoulos v. Greece, Judgment of 13 December 2005, application no. 15250/02, para. 54. 157. Istanbul protocol, para. 80. 158. Ibid, paras. 80, 88, 95, 99, 112, 113. 159. Ibid, paras. 89-97. Effective investigation of ill-treatment – Guidelines ► Page 56