CAT/OP/CHE/CSPRO/1 Procedure, any evidence obtained without this information having been provided would be inadmissible, regardless of the offence concerned and its seriousness.8 41. Lastly, suspects are generally able to verify compliance with due process by lodging an objection with the competent appeals authority against the decisions and procedural acts of the police and the public prosecutor’s office (Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 393 et seq.). They may also contest the manner in which they were treated during the first-instance proceedings and, subsequently, during an appeal to a higher court (Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 398). All of these measures guarantee the accused a fair trial. C. Internal and external complaints mechanisms 42. Paragraphs 47 and 48: The Subcommittee recommends that the State party guarantee that mechanisms are in place for the filing by persons deprived of their liberty of complaints concerning acts or omissions by the authorities responsible for their treatment. Such mechanisms should be available within all places of deprivation of liberty, and information about them should be transparent and disseminated widely in several languages. The State party should also ensure that all allegations or complaints concerning acts of torture or illtreatment are transmitted without delay and in an impartial manner to the competent authorities, that they are investigated and, if necessary, that dissuasive penalties are imposed. 43. Article 301 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that everyone is entitled to report an offence to a prosecution authority, either in writing or orally. Prosecution authorities include the public prosecutor’s office and the police (Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 12). These authorities are independent (Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 4), are subject to the principle of substantive truth (Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 6) and are required to initiate and conduct proceedings without delay when they become aware or have grounds for suspecting that an offence has been committed (Code of Criminal Procedure, arts. 5 and 7). In addition, the injured party may apply to the director of proceedings for the recusal of a person acting for a criminal justice authority if there are grounds to suspect that he or she may not be impartial (Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 56 et seq.). If the request for recusal is opposed, it is referred to the public prosecutor’s office for a final decision if the matter relates to the police (Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 59 (1) (a)). The injured party may file his or her complaint with the public prosecutor’s office directly (Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 301); reports do not therefore have to be made through the police. In other cases where a complaint is lodged against an authority involved in a case, the rules on the recusal procedure apply (Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 59). The criminal justice authorities, including police officers, are required to report any offences that come to light in the course of their official activities to the competent authorities (Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 302). The parties may appeal against decisions and procedural acts of the police and the public prosecutor’s office (Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 393). Taken together, these provisions guarantee that any person claiming injury by a public official will receive a fair hearing by an independent authority. Moreover, the Federal Supreme Court has confirmed that any person who makes an arguable claim of inhuman or degrading treatment by a police officer is entitled to an effective and thorough official investigation.9 44. While most of the cantons leave the prosecution of public officials who have committed offences, including police officers, to the public prosecutor’s office, some have adopted additional measures to strengthen the (already strong) guarantees provided by the Code of Criminal Procedure. These measures include, for example, stipulating that interviews in such cases may be conducted only by representatives of the public prosecutor’s office, by an officer of a police force not involved in the case or, as in Geneva, by a special police unit dedicated to cases of this kind (the Inspectorate General of Services). Certain other cantons have established alternative mechanisms to those envisaged under the Code of Criminal Procedure for managing complaints against police officers. For example, the 8 9 8 Jean-Marc Verniory, art. 158 N 26, in Commentaire romand – Code de procédure pénale, A. Kuhn and Y. Jeanneret, eds. (Basel, 2009). This author also argues that providing partial information on rights is equivalent to providing none at all. Federal Supreme Court decisions 138 IV 86, para. 3.1.1, and 131 I 455, para. 1.2.5. GE.21-03864