Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effective Investigation of Alleged Police Human Rights Abuse: Combating Impunity

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Police and International Human Rights Law

Abstract

Human rights have a procedural side. If there is a complaint, or suspicion, that the police have abused their powers, human rights require such cases to be investigated effectively. This requirement has been developed by international human rights bodies during the last decades, in particular in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights on the right to life and the prohibition of torture. This chapter describes the conditions of an ‘effective’ investigation, including the role of independent police complaint bodies in avoiding impunity for human rights violations.

Dr Graham Smith is a Senior Lecturer in Regulation at the University of Manchester and a Council of Europe consultant on human rights law. Since drafting the Commissioner for Human Rights Complaints Opinion in 2009 he has advised on combating impunity and police complaints and participated in training programmes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Committee Study of the Central Intelligence Agency’s Detention and Interrogation Program (2014) Findings and Conclusions and Executive Summary. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, https://web.archive.org/web/20141209165504/http:/www.intelligence.senate.gov/study2014/sscistudy1.pdf.

  2. 2.

    See Amnesty International (2015).

  3. 3.

    See Harris (2015), Armstrong (2016).

  4. 4.

    Velasquez Rodriguez Case, Judgment of July 29, 1988, Inter-Am.Ct.H.R. (Ser. C) No. 4 (1988).

  5. 5.

    For example, Council of Europe ETS No. 126, European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, CPT/Inf/C (2002) 1 [EN]; UN General Assembly, Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 9 January 2003, A/RES/57/199; UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (‘Istanbul Protocol’), 2004, HR/P/PT/8/Rev.1.

  6. 6.

    For example, European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), www.cpt.coe.int; Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (SPT), http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/OPCAT/Pages/Brief.aspx.

  7. 7.

    For example, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), www.osce.org, and Amnesty International, www.amnesty.org, respectively.

  8. 8.

    See, for example, Set of Principles for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights through Action to Combat Impunity (UN Doc. E/CN.4/2005/102/Add.1): https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G05/109/00/PDF/G0510900.pdf?OpenElement; Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on eradicating impunity for serious human rights violations, Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 30 March 2011 at the 1110th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies: https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1769177.

  9. 9.

    See Murdoch and Roach (2013).

  10. 10.

    (Application no. 52391), Judgment 15 May 2007.

  11. 11.

    (Application no. 24014/05), Judgment 14 April 2015. See also Kukavika and Fikfak’s (2015) case comment.

  12. 12.

    McCann v the United Kingdom (Application no. 18984/91), Judgment 27 September 1995, para. 161.

  13. 13.

    See Smith (2015a).

  14. 14.

    Aksoy v Turkey (Application no. 21987/93), Judgment 18 December 1996: Article 2 jurisprudence on effective investigation was applied to Article 3 in Assenov v Bulgaria (Application no. 24760/94), Judgment 28 October 1998.

  15. 15.

    Ergi v Turkey (Application no. 23818/94), Judgment 28 July 1998; Güleç v Turkey (Application no. 1593/93), Judgment 27 July 1998.

  16. 16.

    Ergi v Turkey (Application no. 23818/94), Judgment 28 July 1998. The obligation to investigate allegations against non-state actors was applied to Article 3 in Assenov v Bulgaria (Application no. 24760/94), Judgment 28 October 1998.

  17. 17.

    Jordan v The United Kingdom (Application no. 24746/94); McKerr v. the United Kingdom (Application no. 28883/95); Kelly and Others v. the United Kingdom, (Application no. 30054/96); and Shanaghan v. the United Kingdom (Application no. 37715/97): all judgments 4 May 2001.

  18. 18.

    See, for example, Jordan v The United Kingdom (Application no. 24746/94), Judgment 4 May 2001, paras 102–109.

  19. 19.

    Jordan v The United Kingdom (Application no. 24746/94), Judgment 4 May 2001, para. 106.

  20. 20.

    Nachova & Others v Bulgaria (Application nos. 43577/98 & 43579/98), Judgment 6 July 2005.

  21. 21.

    (Application no. 52391), Judgment 15 May 2007.

  22. 22.

    Ramsahai v The Netherlands (Application no. 52391/99), Judgment 15 May 2007, para. 324.

  23. 23.

    Ramsahai v The Netherlands (Application no. 52391/99), Judgment 15 May 2007, para. 325.

  24. 24.

    Ramsahai v The Netherlands (Application no. 52391/99), Judgment 15 May 2007, paras. 326–332: by a majority decision of sixteen votes to one.

  25. 25.

    Ramsahai v The Netherlands (Application no. 52391/99), Judgment 15 May 2007, para. 333–341.

  26. 26.

    (Application no. 24014/05), Judgment 14 April 2015. See also Kukavika and Fikfak’s (2015) case comment.

  27. 27.

    Tunç v Turkey (Application no. 24014/05), Judgment 14 April 2015, paras. 223–225: by a majority decision of twelve votes to five.

  28. 28.

    Tunç v Turkey (Application no. 24014/05), Judgment 25 June 2013, para. 138.

  29. 29.

    Tunç v Turkey (Application no. 24014/05), Judgment 14 April 2015, para. 225.

  30. 30.

    Tunç v Turkey (Application no. 24014/05), Judgment 14 April 2015, para. 254.

  31. 31.

    Tunç v Turkey (Application no. 24014/05), Judgment 14 April 2015, paras. 209 and 216, respectively.

  32. 32.

    Revised final Report prepared by Mr. Joinet pursuant to Sub-Commission decision 1996/119, Question of the impunity of perpetrators of human rights violations (civil and political), UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/20/Rev.1, 1 (2 October 1997). http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/impu/joinet2.html.

  33. 33.

    Judgment of July 29, 1988, Inter-Am.Ct.H.R. (Ser. C) No. 4 (1988).

  34. 34.

    Vienna Declaration and Program of Action: UN Doc. A/Conf,157/24. Part II. para.91.

  35. 35.

    Set of Principles for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights through Action to Combat Impunity (UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/20/Rev.1, annex II).

  36. 36.

    Set of Principles for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights through Action to Combat Impunity (UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/20/Rev.1, annex II) p14.

  37. 37.

    McSherry and Molina Mejia (1992); see also Afflitto (2000), Penrose (1999).

  38. 38.

    See Rojas Baez (1996, 2000).

  39. 39.

    Rojas Baez (1996), p. 85.

  40. 40.

    On this point, Cherif Bassiouni (2000) ascribed impunity to the conflicting goals of realpolitik and justice, and described it as a consequence of the search for compromise between political settlement and legal accountability.

  41. 41.

    Set of Principles for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights through Action to Combat Impunity (UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/20/Rev.1, annex II).

  42. 42.

    Set of Principles for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights through Action to Combat Impunity (UN Doc. E/CN.4/2005/102/Add.1): https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G05/109/00/PDF/G0510900.pdf?OpenElement.

  43. 43.

    Buttressed by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and access to justice in the event of failure by a state to meet international humanitarian law duties.

  44. 44.

    Set of Principles for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights through Action to Combat Impunity (UN Doc. E/CN.4/2005/102/Add.1).

  45. 45.

    CPT, 2004, 14th General Report on the CPT's activities covering the period 1 August 2003 to 31 July 2004: CPT/Inf (2004) 28.

  46. 46.

    See, for example, CPT/Inf/E (2002) 1 - Rev. 2015.

  47. 47.

    European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment: CPT/Inf/C (2002) 1 [EN].

  48. 48.

    CPT Standards. CPT/Inf/E (2002) 1 - Rev. 2015, p. 105.

  49. 49.

    Expert Workshop ‘Police complaints mechanisms: ensuring independence and effectiveness’ Strasbourg, 26-27 May 2008, Report, Council of Europe CommDH(2008)16.

  50. 50.

    Council of Europe, CommDH(2009)4, https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?p=&id=1417857&direct=true, see Smith (2010). In the same year guidelines on effective investigation standards were published as part of a ‘Combating ill-treatment and impunity’ joint programme of the European Commission and the Council of Europe, which focussed on police and law enforcement activities in five Council of Europe member states – Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine: see Svanidze (2009).

  51. 51.

    See Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions: Addendum Study on police oversight mechanisms: UN A/HRC/14/24/Add.8, published 28 May 2010.

  52. 52.

    See Handbook on police oversight, accountability and integrity, UNODC, Vienna, 2011.

  53. 53.

    Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on eradicating impunity for serious human rights violations, Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 30 March 2011 at the 1110th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies, p. 2: https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1769177.

  54. 54.

    The Commissioner’s Complaints Opinion, for example, see fn. 39 above.

  55. 55.

    See Svanidze (2009), Smith (2015a).

  56. 56.

    Further evidence on the difficulties faced is to be found in the annual reports of the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (http://www.coe.int/en/web/execution/home).

  57. 57.

    Orentlicher reported favourably on the effectiveness of the Joinet Principles and recommended their updating: Independent study on best practices, including recommendations, to assist states in strengthening their domestic capacity to perform all aspects of impunity, by Professor Diane Orentlicher: UN Doc. E/CN.4/2004/88: p. 2. https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G04/113/55/PDF/G0411355.pdf?OpenElement. Orentlicher later pointed out the importance of understanding the cultural context of impunity, see Impunity Watch (2007).

  58. 58.

    Providing that there is not impunity de jure, in which case remedies for human rights abuse are a matter for the legislature in the first instance; see, for example, Cestaro v Italy (Application no. 68841/11), Judgment of 7 April 2015.

  59. 59.

    See Smith (2009).

  60. 60.

    Tunç v Turkey (Application no. 24014/05), Judgment 14 April 2015, para. 174.

  61. 61.

    Tunç v Turkey (Application no. 24014/05), Judgment 14 April 2015, para. 175.

  62. 62.

    See Smith (2009) and Savage (2013) on meanings of independence.

  63. 63.

    Tunç v Turkey (Application no. 24014/05), Judgment 14 April 2015, para. 254.

  64. 64.

    For an interesting discussion on complaints and police legitimacy see Torrible (2016).

  65. 65.

    See Prenzler (2000), Smith (2013).

  66. 66.

    See Goldsmith and Lewis (2000), Prenzler and den Heyer (2015).

  67. 67.

    Also evidenced in the case files and reports of the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights: http://www.coe.int/en/web/execution/home.

  68. 68.

    Only two IPCBs with investigation powers have been established in Europe, in Scotland and Denmark, since publication of the Commissioner’s Complaints Opinion; see Smith (2015b).

  69. 69.

    See Luna and Walker (2000).

  70. 70.

    See Goldsmith (2005).

  71. 71.

    See Prenzler and Ronken (2001).

  72. 72.

    See Smith (2009).

  73. 73.

    Tunç v Turkey (Application no. 24014/05), Judgment 14 April 2015, para. 255.

  74. 74.

    On this point see the joint dissenting opinion of Judges Speilmann, Karakaş, Ziemele, López Guerra, and de Gaetano; Tunç v Turkey (Application no. 24014/05), Judgment 14 April 2015.

  75. 75.

    I am grateful to Neville Harris for comments on an earlier draft of this chapter. The usual caveat applies.

References

  • Afflitto FM (2000) Victimization, survival and the impunity of forced exile: a case study from the Rwandan genocide. Crime Law Social Change 34:77–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amnesty International (2015) USA crimes and impunity: Full Senate Committee report on CIA secret detentions must be released, and accountability for crimes under international law ensured. Amnesty International, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong MJ (2016) Are we nearing the end of impunity for taking black lives? Santa Clara Law Rev 56(4):721–761

    Google Scholar 

  • Cherif Bassiouni M (2000) Combating impunity for international crimes. Univ Colo Law Rev 71:409–422

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldsmith A (2005) Police reform and the problem of trust. Theor Criminol 9(4):443–470

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldsmith A, Lewis C (2000) Introduction. In: Goldsmith A, Lewis C (eds) Civilian oversight of policing: governance, democracy and human rights. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris F (2015) The next civil rights movement? Dissent 62(3):34–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Impunity Watch (2007) Research Instrument. www.impunitywatch.org

  • Kukavika J, Fikfak V (2015) Strasbourg’s U-turn on independence as part of an effective investigation under Article 2. Camb Law J 74(3):415–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luna E, Walker S (2000) Institutional structure vs political will: Albuquerque as a case study in the effectiveness of citizen oversight of the police. In: Goldsmith A, Lewis C (eds) Civilian oversight of policing: governance, democracy and human rights. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • McSherry JP, Molina Mejia R (1992) Confronting the Question of Justice in Guatemala’. Soc Justice 19(3):1–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Murdoch J, Roach R (2013) The European Convention on Human Rights and policing: a handbook for police officers and other law enforcement officials. Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg. http://www.coe.int/t/dgi/hr-natimplement/Source/documentation/EuropeanConventionHandbookForPolice.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Penrose MM (1999) Impunity – inertia, inaction, and invalidity: a literature review. Bost Univ Int Law J 17:269–310

    Google Scholar 

  • Prenzler T (2000) Civilian oversight of police: a test of capture theory. Br J Criminol 40:659–674

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prenzler T, den Heyer G (eds) (2015) Civilian oversight of police: advancing accountability in law enforcement. CRC, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  • Prenzler T, Ronken C (2001) Models of police oversight: a critique. Polic Soc 11(2):151–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rojas Baez P (1996) Breaking the human link: the medico-psychiatric view of impunity. In: Harper C (ed) Impunity: an ethical perspective: six case studies from Latin America. World Council of Churches, Geneva, pp 73–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Rojas Baez P (2000) Impunity: an impossible reparation. Nord J Int Law 69:27–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Savage S (2013) Thinking independence: calling the police to account through the independent investigation of police complaints. Br J Criminol 27(7):723–746

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith G (2009) Why don’t more people complain against the police? Eur J Criminol 6(3):249–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith G (2010) Every complaint matters: Human Rights Commissioner’s opinion concerning independent and effective determination of complaints against the police. Int J Law Crime Justice 38(2):59–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith G (2013) Oversight of the police and residual complaints dilemmas: independence, effectiveness and accountability deficits in the United Kingdom. Police Pract Res 14(2):92–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith G (2015a) The interface between human rights and police complaints. In: Prenzler T, den Heyer G (eds) Civilian oversight of police: advancing accountability in law enforcement. CRC, Boca Raton, pp 159–178

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Smith G (2015b) International police complaints reform. Paper presented to the ‘CPT at 25: taking stock and moving forward’ Conference, Palais de l’Europe, Strasbourg, France; 2 March 2015. http://www.cpt.coe.int/en/conferences/cpt25-Panel1-Smith.pdf (accessed 2 November 2015)

  • Svanidze E (2009) Effective investigation of ill-treatment: guidelines on European standards. Council of Europe/European Union, Strasbourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Torrible C (2016) Reconceptualising the police complaints process as a site of contested legitimacy claims. Policing and Society published online 3 June 2016:1–16 https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2016.1191486

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

    Graham Smith

Authors
  1. Graham Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Graham Smith .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Brandenburg University of Applied Police Sciences, Oranienburg, Germany

    Ralf Alleweldt

  2. Brandenburg University of Applied Police Sciences, Oranienburg, Germany

    Guido Fickenscher

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Smith, G. (2018). Effective Investigation of Alleged Police Human Rights Abuse: Combating Impunity. In: Alleweldt, R., Fickenscher, G. (eds) The Police and International Human Rights Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71339-7_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71339-7_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-71338-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-71339-7

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation