72. The promptness principle plays a crucial part in preserving trust and confidence in the rule of law and upholding the core policing principle that police officers are accountable to and protected by the law throughout the police complaints process. 73. Adherence to the promptness principle is served by: ff timely implementation of notification, recording and allocation procedures; ff full police co-operation with the IPCB in the investigation of complaints, particularly to preserve the evidence following serious incidents and when police officers are on the scene before IPCB investigators;247 and ff timeliness in the conduct of a thorough and comprehensive investigation and the determination of a complaint. Public scrutiny 74. The purpose of the public scrutiny principle is to achieve accountability in practice as well as theory. The confidential and sensitive nature of police complaints investigations needs to be taken into consideration and the degree of public scrutiny that is required may vary from case to case.248 75. The public scrutiny and victim involvement principles are closely connected. There should be a presumption that reports and other documents will be disclosed, particularly to the complainant. Disclosure of documents which explain the reasons for a decision may help dispel any concern that there is impunity for police wrongdoing.249 In some cases, following death or serious injury in custody for example, it may be necessary to hold a public inquiry before a judicial officer,250 or hold a police disciplinary hearing in public. 76. Without access to reports and documents after completion of the complaints process complainants may be denied the opportunity to challenge the way in which their complaint was handled or resolved.251 247. See, for example, Ramsahai v. The Netherlands (Application no. 52391/99), Judgment 15 May 2007, § 338. 248. See, for example, Isayeva v. Russia (Application nos. 5794/00, 57948/00 and 57949/00), Judgment 24 February 2005, § 213. 249. See, for example, McKerr v. UK (Application no. 28883/95), Judgment 4 May 2001, § 338. 250. See, for example, Edwards v. UK (Application no. 46477/99) 14 March 2002, § 84. 251. See, for example, Oğur v. Turkey (Application no. 21594/93), Judgment 20 May 1999, § 92. Appendices ► Page 99