E/CN.4/2006/7/Add.2 page 18 mechanisms, others provide for the possibility of an appeal to an external, independent civilian body against procedures and findings of the internal mechanism, still others provide for investigation by an independent civilian oversight body. Several public inquiries in Canada in recent years have shown that exclusively internal investigation of complaints concerning misconduct by police - as is still the case in some provinces - is not sufficient to adequately address cases of arbitrary conduct, including arbitrary arrests by the police. Also, where an independent, external agency to receive complaints against the police is in place, the effectiveness of the oversight will be diminished if that agency cannot conduct its own investigations and therefore has to rely on internal investigations. This shortcoming can be remedied, at least in part, by attributing to the police oversight agency the power to order a different police force to conduct an investigation, as is the case in British Columbia. 72. Analogous concerns apply to the area of corrections, where in several Canadian jurisdictions no external, independent mechanism exists for the investigation of complaints regarding the conduct of corrections officers. Other jurisdictions do have independent oversight mechanisms and there is also an ombudsman for federal corrections, the Correctional Investigator. B. Detention under immigration law 73. As already stated above, the detention of refugee claimants and foreigners without status is the exception. The Working Group wishes to underline that this is - and hopefully will remain - the positive background against which the concerns it expresses with regard to immigration detention must be viewed. 1. Application of the grounds for detention of foreigners pending admissibility hearings or removal 74. One of the grounds on which an immigration officer can detain a foreign national is that she is not satisfied as to the foreigner’s identity. When the immigration officer relies on this ground, as they often do, the law does not allow the Immigration Division to review whether the immigration officer was reasonable in concluding that the identity of the detainee was not established. The legislation thus fails to offer judicial oversight of the decision to detain based on identity. 75. The Working Group is of course aware that some foreign nationals intentionally destroy or conceal their identification papers. Immigration officers, however, often have unrealistic demands regarding the quantity and quality of identification documents refugees can realistically be expected to carry with them. For instance, according to consistent reports received by the Working Group, people fleeing countries in turmoil or areas of conflict are asked to get documents that they are unlikely to be able to produce or that they might never have used before (credit cards, family photos, birth certificates). This practice of applying “developed-world criteria” to the reasonable proof of identity by an asylum-seeker is all the more preoccupying as the inability to produce such documents is often interpreted by the immigration authorities as an unwillingness to cooperate, which not only leads to the immigrant being considered at risk of flight, but is also seen to negatively affect the credibility of the asylum claim.