“It is beyond doubt that a requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition is implicit in this context. A prompt response by the authorities in investigating allegations of ill-treatment may generally be regarded as essential in maintaining public confidence in their adherence to the rule of law and in preventing any appearance of collusion in or tolerance of unlawful acts (see, among other authorities, Indelicato v. Italy, no. 31143/96, § 37, 18 October 2001, and Özgür Kılıç v. Turkey (dec.), no. 42591/98, 24 September 2002).” 151 4.4 Competence 4.4.1 Investigative bodies must have full competence to establish the facts of the case and to identify and punish those responsible where necessary. 4.4.2 No legal or practical obstacles should impede investigations. The Court has established that certain investigative bodies are incapable, due to lack of competence, of playing an effective role in the identification or prosecution of those responsible for ill-treatment. Death inquests have often fallen into this category, especially their forms that are restricted to ascertaining the identity of the deceased and the date, place and cause of death and do not compel those suspected of causing the death to testify.152 The Court has also criticised as unacceptable special provisions that prevent the investigation of particular groups of law enforcement officials.153 The CPT has been equally critical for such arrangements. For example, it has come across certain legal provisions preventing the identification of members of special forces even for the purposes of investigations into allegations of ill-treatment against them. It has responded as follows: “44. The practice of not disclosing the identity of members of special and rapid intervention forces suspected of having ill-treated detained persons in the context of criminal investigations is unacceptable. If such a state of affairs were to persist it would be tantamount to granting members of special and rapid intervention forces absolute immunity from criminal liability in relation to their actions while on duty […].”154 151. Bati and Others v. Turkey, Judgment of 3 June 2004, applications nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, para. 136. See also Amine Güzel v. Turkey, Judgment of 17 September 2013, application no. 41844/09, para. 39. 152. See Hugh Jordan v. the UK , Judgment of 4 May 2001, application no. 24746/94, paras.125-130. 153. Ibid, at para. 135. In this particular case, the Court found that the public interest immunity certificates in question had not, on the facts, been fatal to effective investigation. 154. CPT’s Report on the visit to Albania carried out from 13 to 18 July 2003, CPT/Inf (2006) 22, para. 44. Explanatory note ► Page 55