GUIDE ON ANTI-TORTURE LEGISLATION evidence given”. Steps to prevent retaliation may include removing personnel accused of torture and ill-treatment from active duty or moving the person who made the complaint to a safe location (for example witness protection, safe houses, etc.). In the Maldives’ Act on the Prohibition and prevention of Torture, any victim who files a complaint to the national human rights commission has a right to have it investigated in a non-biased and impartial manner with reasonable promptness.120 In Uganda, the right to complain is also enshrined in the Prevention and Prohibition of Torture Act and enables any person to lodge a complaint to the Human Rights Commission, the police or any other relevant institution or body.121 In the United Kingdom, the Police Reform Act set up the Independent Police Complaints Commission, in charge of handling complaints on the police. This Commission is independent from the police and it is a requirement for the Commissioners not to have worked for the police.122 120 121 122 17. The Convention requires States parties to ensure prompt and impartial investigations of allegations of torture Whenever a State is obliged to establish jurisdiction under article 5(2)123 this triggers a primary duty of the State to investigate, and potentially prosecute, all allegations of torture. Article 12 of the Convention provides for this obligation to “ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed in any territory under its jurisdiction”. A victim’s complaint should always trigger an investigation and be considered as “reasonable ground”. Allegations from NGOs, information collected from fellow detainees, family members, lawyers, medical staff, national human rights institutions should also trigger such investigations.124 The investigation also needs to be “prompt and impartial” according to the same article but these terms are not defined in the Convention. The Committee has clarified that, in order to fulfil this conventional obligation, States should immediately start investigating when an allegation of torture is brought forward.125 In order for investigations to be impartial, they must not be conducted by their own colleagues. It is therefore important to set up independent bodies, separate from law enforcement or other authorities, to carry out those investigations.126 The Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Maldives, Act on the Prohibition and Prevention of Torture 2013, op. cit. 3, article 18(a). 120 121 Uganda, the Prevention and Prohibition of Torture Act, op. cit. 28, section 11. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Police Reform Act 2002, 2002 Chapter 30, Part 2 Complaints and Misconducts, available at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/30 (last accessed February 2016). 122 123 See above section 16 on universal jurisdiction. 124 Manfred Nowak and Elizabeth McArthur, op. cit. 45, pp. 4413-415. 125 See CAT, Halimi-Nedzibi v. Austria, UN Doc. CAT/C/8/D/8/1991, §13; CAT, Blanco Abad v. Spain, UN Doc. CAT/C/20/D/59/1996, § 8. 126 Manfred Nowak and Elizabeth McArthur, op. cit. 45, p. 436. 39