The duty to investigate does not depend on the submission of a complaint; even “in the absence of an express complaint, an investigation should be undertaken if there are other sufficiently clear indications that torture or ill-treatment might have occurred.”316 The Court has detailed a number of requirements which an investigation into alleged ill-treatment must satisfy to be considered effective. The complainant must have effective access to the investigatory procedure,317 and the investigation must be carried out promptly and with due diligence.318 Furthermore, the persons responsible for the investigation must be independent from those under investigation,319 which implies not only a lack of hierar Article 1 of the Convention reads: “The High Contracting Parties shall secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in Section I of this Convention.” 314 Assenov and Others v Bulgaria (1998), op. cit., §102. See also Labita v Italy (2000), op. cit., §64. The requirements of the duty to investigate follow those required for Article 2. See, for example, McCann and Others v UK, no. 18984/91, ECHR (Series A) No. 324, judgement of 27 September 1995, §161; Kaya v Turkey, no. 22729/93, Rep. 1998-I, judgement of 19 February 1998 §86. 315 Assenov and Others v Bulgaria (1998), op. cit., §102. See also Selmouni v France (1999), op. cit., §§79–80, where the Court dismissed the Government’s preliminary objection on the ground of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, finding that “the notion of an effective remedy entails … a thorough and effective investigation… the authorities did not take the positive measures required in the circumstances of the case to ensure that the remedy referred to by the Government was effective.” 316 Members of the Gldani Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses v Georgia, op. cit., §97. 317 Aksoy v Turkey (1996), op. cit., §98; İlhan v Turkey (2000), op. cit., §92. In both cases, the Court, having found a substantive violation of Article 3, discussed the investigation under article 13 of the Convention. However, the reasoning applies equally to procedural violations of Article 3. 318 See, for example, İlhan v Turkey (2000), op. cit., §§92–93; Dalan v Turkey, no 38585/97, judgement of 7 June 2005, §31; Osman v Bulgaria, no 43233/98, judgement of 16 February 2006, §74; Colibaba v Moldova, no. 29089/06, judgement of 23 October 2007, §53. 319 Barbu Anghelescu v Romania, no. 46430/99, judgement of 5 October 2004, §66. See also Güleç v Turkey, no. 21593/93, Rep. 1998-IV, judgement of 27 July 1998, §§81–82; Mikheyev v Russia, 2 The European Regional System it impossible to determine whether his injuries had been caused by police officers or by the second applicant, but nonetheless held that there had been a procedural violation of Article 3, read in conjunction with Article 1,313 due to failure on the part of the State to conduct an effective investigation. The Court noted that such an investigation should “be capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible.”314 Without such a duty to investigate, “the general legal prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment, despite its fundamental importance, would be ineffective in practice and it would be possible in some cases for agents of the State to abuse the rights of those within their control with virtual impunity.”315 Thus, the Court extended the State obligations in this regard in order to give effect to the rights guaranteed in the ECHR. 313 67