PART II.  THE RESPONSIBILITY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES Law enforcement agencies also bear responsibility for wrongdoings committed by their staff.110 The BPUFF makes a distinction between “law enforcement officials” and “law enforcement agencies”. Typically, the Minister of Interior together with the leadership of law enforcement agencies, the Chief of Police and his or her senior management team, are the responsible authorities at the national level.111 Usually the Minister of Interior also bears political responsibility for the functioning of law enforcement agencies in front of the legislature and other oversight bodies In addition, in many countries, for example in South and Central America, continental Europe, some African countries, parts of the Middle East and Asia, local authorities, such as mayors (or their equivalent)112 play a key role in directing and sometimes overseeing law enforcement in their municipalities. Whatever the institutional setting is, it is important that roles and responsibilities are clearly defined. CORPORATE MANSLAUGHTER Certain (mostly common law) jurisdictions have introduced legislation on “corporate manslaughter”, meaning that an organization (as a corporate entity) can be found responsible under criminal law when its staff violates laws and procedures. It is an institutional responsibility to set up structures, implement and enforce rules and procedures that reduce the possibility of violations happening and ensure proper accountability in case they do occur. For example, in the United Kingdom, an organization is “guilty of an offence if the way in which its activities are managed or organized causes a person’s death and amounts to a gross breach of a relevant duty of care owed by the organization to the deceased. An organization is guilty of an offence only if the way in which its activities are managed or organized by its senior management is a substantial element in [manslaughter]”.a a See United Kingdom, Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 (CMCHA), section 1. 3.2.  An effective line of command Effective accountability requires the installation of a clear chain of command, as everyday discipline relies on it.113 An effective line of command facilitates both upward and downward communication and eases the coordination of operations that require the involvement of multiple units (or multiple law enforcement bodies). It must be clear to every member of staff who he or she reports to; and who reports to him or her. 110  See McCann et all v. the United Kingdom, European Court on Human Rights; PERF, “Re-Engineering Training On Police Use of Force, ”Critical Issues in Policing Series, 2015, p.9: http://www.policeforum.org/assets/reengineeringtraining.pdf; the IPCC investigation into the killing of De Menezes; and also the investigation into the handling of the terrorist attacks in Mpeketoni, Kenya, by the Independent Policing Oversight Authority (2014). 111  In addition, in some countries there is a Security Council or Police Council setting the policy parameters for the police, and a Police Commission, responsible for personnel management issues. In decentralized systems, and also in federal States, there sometimes is a decentralized equivalent. 112  In some States the mayor (often referred to as “(Village) Chief” in African and Asian countries) is a locally elected official serving his or her electorate, in others he or she is appointed by and serving the (national) Government. Sometimes the mayor is part of the law enforcement architecture, sometimes he or she plays an oversight role or is independent. 113  See Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, principle 2; Body of Principles, principle 24; BPUFF, principle 24; Guidelines for the Effective Implementation of the Code of Conduct for Law enforcement officials, IB (3). 43