177 Burgers & Danelius, ibid. note 54, pp. 141-142. 178 Burgers & Danelius, ibid. note 54, pp. 143-144. 179 Relevant standards: The Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (1957, 1977), Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners (1990), the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons Under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment (1988), United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of Their Liberty (1990), Principles of Medical Ethics relevant to the Role of Health Personnel, particularly Physicians, in the Protection of Prisoners and Detainees against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1982), Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials (1979), Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials (1990), Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers (1990), United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-Custodial Measures (The Tokyo Rules 1990), United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (The Beijing Rules). 180 See inter alia, CAT/C/SR.30, § 57; Ingelse, ibid. note 20, p. 273. 181 Mukong v. Cameroon, Complaint 458/1991, A/49/40, vol. II (1994), annex IX, sect. A, p. 171, § 9.3. In General Comment 21, the Human Rights Committee expressed its view that States should apply the Standard Minimum Rules and that a minimum of humanity and dignity must always be guaranteed: “Treating all persons deprived of their liberty with humanity and with respect for their dignity is a fundamental and universally applicable rule. Consequently, the application of this rule, as a minimum, cannot be dependent on the material resources available in the State Party.” General comment 21, HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1 (1994), p. 33, § 4. 182 CAT/C/SR.30, § 22 and 23; Ingelse, ibid. note 20, p. 272. 183 CAT/C/SR.95, § 7; CAT/C/SR.96, § 18; Ingelse, ibid. 184 CAT/C/SR.267, § 23, under E,4 (Committee as a whole); Ingelse, ibid. 185 CAT/C/SR.40, § 9 and 42; CAT/C/SR.120, § 24; Ingelse, ibid. 186 CAT/C/SR.195, § 39; CAT/C/SR.232, § 21; Ingelse, ibid. 187 See the conclusions of the Committee of a confidential investigation into the occurrence of systematic torture in Turkey, A/48/44/Add.1, § 47; Ingelse, ibid. 188 CAT/C/SR.145, § 10 and CAT/C/SR.168, § 40. 189 Ingelse, ibid. note 20, p. 336. 190 Bent Sorensen, CAT/C/SR.102, § 47 and 54. 191 E.B. Abad v. Spain, Communication no. 59/1996, CAT/C/20/D/59/1996. The author complained of having been subjected to ill-treatment consisting of insults, threats, and blows, of having been kept hooded for many hours and of having been forced to remain naked, although she displayed no signs of violence. The Committee found that these elements should have sufficed for the initiation of an investigation, which did not however take place. “The lack of investigation of the author’s allegations, which were made first to the forensic physician after the first examination and during the subsequent examinations she underwent, and then repeated before the judge of the National High Court, and the amount of time which passed between the reporting of the facts and the initiation of proceedings by Court No. 44 are incompatible with the obligation to proceed to a prompt investigation, as provided for in article 12 of the Convention.” 192 Burgers & Danelius, ibid. note 54, p. 145. 193 Ingelse, ibid. note 20, p. 335. 194 CAT/C/SR.245., § 37. 195 Halimi-Nedzibi v. Austria, complaint 8/1991, A749/44, Annex V, p. 40; Blanco Abad v. Spain, complaint 59/1996, A/53/44 (1998), Annex X, p. 66; Barakat v. Tunisia, complaint 60/1996, CAT/C/23/D/60/1996; Ingelse, ibid. note 20, p. 356. 196 Halimi-Nedzibi v. Austria, ibid., § 15. 197 E.A. v. Switzerland, Communication no. 28/1995, CAT/C/19/D/28/1995. 198 Ingelse, ibid. note 20, p. 335. 199 E.A. v. Switzerland, ibid. note 198. 200 Barakat v. Tunisia, Communication no. 14/1994, CAT/C/14/D/14/1994, § 11,10 and 12; Ingelse, ibid. note 20, p. 356. 201 In 1989, Professor Theo van Boven was entrusted by the United Nations with a study on the right to restitution, compensation, and rehabilitation for victims of gross human rights violations. This ultimately resulted in Draft Basic Principles and Guidelines (1997), in which he concluded that the only appropriate response to such victims is one of reparation. Professor van Boven’s study outlined four main forms of reparation: (1) restitution, (2) compensation, (3) rehabilitation, (4) satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition. Professor M. Cherif Bassiouni, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights Independent Expert on the right to restitution, compensation, and rehabilitation for victims of grave violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms, continued the work of Professor van Boven and submitted to the UN Commission on Human Rights (2000) a set of Draft Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a