Notes 125. Michael Peel, Noam Lubell and Jonathan Beynon, Medical Investigation and Documentation of Torture: A Handbook for Health Professionals, Human Rights Centre, University of Essex, 2005, pp.33-34. 126. Principles on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, at Annex I to the Istanbul Protocol, para. 6(b). 127. Istanbul Protocol, para.95. See also Article 13 (2) of the UN Convention against Torture provides “Steps shall be taken to ensure that the complainant is protected against all ill-treatment or intimidation as a consequence of his complaint or any evidence given.” 128. Concluding Observations of the Committee Against Torture on Sri Lanka’s state party report, UN Doc. CAT/C/LKA/CO/2, 15 December 2005, para. 15. 129. REDRESS, Taking Complaints of Torture Seriously, Rights of Victims and Responsibilities of Authorities, November 2004, p.33. 130. General Recommendations of the Special Rapporteur on Torture, UN Doc E/ CN.4/2003/68, 17 December 2002, para. 26(k). 131. See Istanbul Protocol, Part IV. 132. Ibid., para.89. 133. Ibid., para.99. 134. Michael Peel, Noam Lubell and Jonathan Beynon, Medical Investigation and Documentation of Torture: A Handbook for Health Professionals, Human Rights Centre, University of Essex, 2005, p.57. 135. See articles 10 and 11 of the UN Convention against Torture. 136. REDRESS, Taking Complaints of Torture Seriously, Rights of Victims and Responsibilities of Authorities, November 2004, p.26. 137. Ibid. p.24. 138. Concluding Observations of the Committee Against Torture on Hungary’s State Party Report, UN Doc. CAT/C/HUN/CO/4, 6 February 2007, para. 16(a). 139. REDRESS, Taking Complaints of Torture Seriously, Rights of Victims and Responsibilities of Authorities, November 2004, p.24. 140. See http://www.policeombudsman.org/ howtocomplain.cfm 65 141. See, in relation to the PONI, Section 13, Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2003. 142. See for example the role of the Centre for the Administration of Justice (CAJ) in Northern Ireland, Liberty in the United Kingdom and the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation in South Africa. 143. For example, the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka, has ordered the national authorities to carry out investigations into allegations of torture. See e.g. Abasin Banda v. Gunaratne, SC (FR) 109/95, SCA 623/00; SCA363/00 and V v. Mr. Wijesekara and Others, Supreme Court, Sri Lanka,. SC App No. 186/2001, 24 August 2002. 144. For a list of the different types of bodies and mechanisms with authority to conduct investigations that exist in various countries, see Combating Torture, page 177. 145. For more details on the findings from a review of law and practice on the right to reparation in different countries, see Audit Project: A Survey of the Law and Practice of Reparation for Torture in 30 Countries Worldwide, REDRESS, April 2003. 146. For more information, Audit Report: A Survey of the Law and Practice of Reparation for Torture in 30 Countries Worldwide, published by REDRESS, April 2003. 147. The principle aut dedere aut judicare (the obligation to either extradite or prosecute) is well established in international law. See REDRESS’ Amicus Brief on the Legality of Amnesties under International Law, http:// www.redress.org/casework/AmicusCuriaeBrief-SCSL1.pdf. See Universal Jurisdiction and Torture, A Primer, available at http:// www.irct.org/Default.aspx?ID=2678 148. The former Special Rapporteur on Torture recommended to Chile that all allegations of Torture committed since 1973 (some covered by the Amnesty Law) should be subject of a thorough public inquiry and that “in cases where the evidence justifies it… those responsible should be brought to justice”, except where the proceedings are barred by a statute of limitations. (Question of the Human Rights of All Persons Subjected to Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, in particular: Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Report of the Special