V. Forms of investigation and punishment 5.1 Procedural forms of investigation 5.1.1 The appropriate investigative procedures will depend upon the facts of each case, but may include criminal, disciplinary and/or administrative procedures. Guideline 5.1.1 incorporates the general wording used by the Court when dealing with the adequacy of official investigations.170 The appropriate procedures inevitably vary from country to country and are therefore largely left to each state’s “margin of appreciation”. The Strasbourg Court requires only that the procedures adopted be “effective”.171 Some states limit the extent to which certain investigative procedures can be carried out in the absence of a particular procedural framework. For example, until a preliminary criminal investigation is initiated, forensic examinations and identification parades might be precluded. Forms of investigation can also depend on the type of punishment considered to be adequate in light of the degree of gravity of the alleged ill-treatment. Thus, the Court does not suggest a formal scale of adequacy of sanctions in relation to particular types of ill-treatment. However, it is a well-established norm under international human rights law that torture should lead to criminal responsibility and punishment.172 This is stated unequivocally in Article 4 of UNCAT and is followed in Europe. Regional instruments imply that states are expected to criminalise and apply criminal sanctions in response to physical or psychological abuse and other serious forms of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment that are attributable to state agents. The following passage sets out the Strasbourg Court’s position in this respect: “In this connection, the Court notes that the fact of the applicant’s beating by police officers was unequivocally established in the course of the proceedings for compensation under the State Responsibility for Damage Act. The only fact which remained to be ascertained was the identity of the police officers who 170. İpek v. Turkey, Judgment of 17 February 2004, application no. 25760/94, para. 169. 171. See section IV and related comments above. 172. See Bati and Others v. Turkey, Judgment of 3 June 2004, applications nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, paras 145-146; Mikheev v. Russia, Judgment of 26 January 2006, application no. 77617/01, paras. 120 and 135. Explanatory note ► Page 59