General Assembly9 and the CPT,10 and judgments by the European Court of Human Rights
(ECtHR)11 provide further guidance on these positive obligations to prevent ill-treatment.
11. As early as 1992, the CPT highlighted in its 2nd General Report the importance of a
number of fundamental safeguards for the effective prevention of police ill-treatment,
namely:
a) the right of access to a lawyer,
b) the right of access to a doctor and
c) the right to have the fact of one’s detention notified to a relative or another third
party of one’s choice.
This “trinity of rights”, as well as the basic precondition to be informed of these rights,
can be further extended by other safeguards, including:
d) meticulous registration of all arrested and detained persons (and thereby
counteracting any unofficial detention),
e) presentation before a judicial authority of any arrested person within a relatively
short time after their apprehension,
f) prompt transfer of persons remanded into custody to a pre-trial detention facility,
and
g) specific safeguards for vulnerable groups, such as juveniles, persons suffering
from a mental disorder or foreigners.
With the development of technical means, such as CCTV, body- and helmet cameras, and
audio- and video recording of interviews, additional possibilities for preventing police illtreatment have emerged.
12. The importance of all of these safeguards has recently received new impetus, with the
publication of a scientific study – “Does Torture Prevention Work?”.12 The study
examines the effectiveness of more than sixty different measures for the prevention of
torture, and comes to the conclusion that the classic safeguards, as described in this
paragraph, are the most effective ones in the fight against torture – if applied in practice.
13. Equally in 1992, the police service of England and Wales adopted PEACE (Planning and
preparation, Engage and explain, Account, Closure and Evaluation) as the framework for
investigative interviewing. This laid the foundation for a change of mindsets of police
officers by replacing the objective of eliciting a confession with one of obtaining accurate
and reliable information; thereby eliminating a major incentive for applying coercion and
ill-treatment during questioning. This, in itself, constitutes a preventive measure against
police ill-treatment. As described in more detail below (paras. 42-60), investigative
interviewing was founded and refined through scientific studies. It has been embraced by
Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, General
Assembly resolution 43/173 of 9 December 1988; Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, General
Assembly resolution 34/169 of 17 December 1979.
10 See in particular, “Police Custody”, 2nd General Report of the CPT, 1992; “Developments concerning CPT
standards in respect of police custody”, 12th General Report of the CPT, 2002; “Combating impunity”, 14th
General Report of the CPT, 2014; “Access to a lawyer as a means of preventing ill-treatment”, 21st General Report
of the CPT, 2011.
11 Cf., e.g., Salduz vs. Turkey, Application no. 36391/02, GC judgment of 27 November 2008. Note that the socalled Salduz doctrine was incorporated into Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 22 October 2013 on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest
warrant proceedings, and on the right to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and to
communicate with third persons and with consular authorities while deprived of liberty (EU Directive on Access
to a Lawyer).
12 Richard Carver and Lisa Handley, Does Torture Prevention Work?, Liverpool University Press, Liverpool,
2016.
9
5