“Any relevant papers, records or documents should be saved for evidential use and handwriting analysis.”132 4.2.3 Evidence should be assembled and investigations conducted in ­conformity with domestic procedural rules. Procedural failures that contribute to the collapse of subsequent legal proceedings constitute failures to take all reasonable steps to secure evidence concerning the incident. Given the aim to punish persons responsible for ill-treatment, procedural failures in the course of the investigation that render the evidence against those persons useless amount to a failure to meet the standards of effective investigation. This Guideline reflects the jurisprudence of the Strasbourg Court.133 4.2.4 Information and evidence relating to ill-treatment must be assessed in a thorough, consistent and objective manner. Investigations must be carried out in a thorough, consistent and coherent manner from their outset. As the CPT points out, “hasty or ill-founded conclusions”134 must be avoided: “Adequately assessing allegations of ill-treatment will often be a far from straightforward matter. Certain types of ill-treatment (such as asphyxiation or electric shocks) do not leave obvious marks, or will not, if carried out with a degree of proficiency. Similarly, making persons stand, kneel or crouch in an uncomfortable position for hours on end, or depriving them of sleep, is unlikely to leave clearly identifiable traces. Even blows to the body may leave only slight physical marks, difficult to observe and quick to fade. Consequently, when allegations of such forms of ill-treatment come to the notice of prosecutorial or judicial authorities, they should be especially careful not to accord undue importance to the absence of physical marks. The same applies a fortiori when the ill-treatment alleged is predominantly of a psychological nature (sexual humiliation, threats to the life or physical integrity of the person detained and/or his family, etc.). Adequately assessing the veracity of allegations of ill-treatment may well require taking evidence from all persons concerned and arranging in good time for on-site inspections and/or specialist medical examinations.”135 132. Istanbul Protocol, para. 103. 133. Maslova and Nalbandov v. Russia, Mikheev v. Russia, Judgment of 24 January 2008, application no. 839/02, para. 95. 134. See the quotation with footnote 97 above. 135. 14th General Report on the CPT’s activities, CPT/Inf (2004) 28 para. 29. Explanatory note ► Page 51