A/76/168 the domestic law. Complaints must be investigated promptly and impartially by competent authorities so as to make the remedy effective.” 16 20. Human rights jurisprudence delineates the duty of States to investigate in exacting terms, thus demonstrating the importance of accountability in fulfilling the right not to be tortured or ill-treated. As the European Court of Human Rights has elaborated: The minimum standards applicable [in respect of the required investigation] include the requirements that the investigation be independent, impartial and subject to public scrutiny, and that the competent authorities act with exemplary diligence and promptness... In addition, for an investigation to be considered effective, the authorities must take whatever reasonable steps they can to secure the evidence concerning the incident, including, inter alia, a detailed statement concerning the allegations from the alleged victim, eyewitness testimony, forensic evidence and, where appropriate, additional medical reports. 17 21. Moreover, the principle of thoroughness requires that: The authorities must always make a serious attempt to find out what happened and should not rely on hasty or ill-founded conclusions to close their investigation or as the basis of their decisions….They must take all reasonable steps available to them to secure the evidence concerning the incident, including, inter alia, eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence….Any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its ability to establish the cause of injuries or the identity of those respon sible will risk falling foul of this standard. 18 In order for an investigation to be independent and impartial, it must be firmly detached from the interests of those implicated in the alleged or suspected violation, and their hierarchical superiors, must be subject to public scrutiny and must ensure the effective participation of the victims or their next of kin, including by means of free legal representation. 19 22. An investigation into whether torture or ill-treatment has occurred should be guided by the Principles on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 20 and the Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Istanbul Protocol). 21 These instruments are widely cited in relevant jurisprudence on the duty to investigate and outline a robust process for gathering evidence for the purpose of establishing whether torture has taken place. 23. Holding States and their institutions accountable in respect of incidents and patterns of torture or ill-treatment is vital, as a mere focus on individual responsibility __________________ 16 17 18 19 20 21 8/23 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 20 (1992), para. 14. European Court of Human Rights, M and others v. Italy and Bulgaria (application No 40020/03), Judgment of 31 July 2012, para. 100; see also European Court of Human Rights, Çelik and İmret v. Turkey (application No. 44093/98), Judgment of 26 October 2004, p ara. 55; and European Court of Human Rights, Batı and others v. Turkey (application Nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00), Judgment of 3 June 2004, para. 134. European Court of Human Rights, Sadkov v. Ukraine (application No. 21987/05), Judgment of 6 July 2017, para. 92; see also Eric Svanidze, Effective Investigation of Ill-Treatment: Guidelines on European Standards, 1st and 2nd eds. (Council of Europe, 2009 and 2014). European Court of Human Rights, Savitskyy v. Ukraine (application No. 38773/05), Judgment of 26 July 2012. Recommended by the General Assembly in its resolution 55/89 of 4 December 2000. Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Istanbul Protocol). 21-09914