Principle 1: Prompt Investigation • Names of individuals involved, such as claimants (if named), potential witnesses, potential sources of information, or suspects; • Identified investigation techniques relevant to specific evidence and information; • Whether any official caution84 should be read to any individuals; and • Whether any information may be disclosed or exchanged with local police force and law enforcement personnel during the course of the investigation.85 From Canadian Special Investigators’ Manual, Ch. 5 (p. 2–3). Timelines for Investigation Timeliness is an essential principle for investigations because it relates to ensuring an effective remedy, due process, and fairness (also discussed above under “Triage”). As such, the United Nations Human Rights Committee affirms that “[c]omplaints [of ill-treatment] must be investigated promptly and impartially by competent authorities so as to make the remedy effective.”86 In assessing whether an investigation has been prompt, the European Court of Human Rights considers the timing of the start of the investigation,87 any delays in obtaining evidence or witness statements,88 and the length of time taken during initial investigations.89 Similarly, the American Bar Association provides that investigation bodies should “diligently pursue the timely con- 84 See Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act, 1982, c. 11, art. 10 (U.K.) (In Canada, police forces issue a “caution” to persons upon arrest, as required by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. An arrested person has the right to be informed properly of the reasons for the arrest; to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; to appeal the validity of the detention through habeas corpus proceedings; and to be released if the detention is not lawful.). 85 Comm’r of Canada Elections, Ch. 5 Direction and Control of Investigation, in Investigators’ Manual 1–5 (2004) [hereinafter Canadian Investigators’ Manual Ch. 5]. 86 20]. H.R.C. General Comment No. 20, ¶ 14, U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1 (Mar. 10, 1992) [hereinafter General Comment No. 87 Bati and Others v. Turkey, App. No. 33097/96, Eur. Ct. H.R. 136 (2004); see also Aksoy v. Turkey, App. No. 21987/93 Eur. Ct. H.R. 1996, ¶ 98 (“[while it is] true that no express provision exists in the Convention as such as can be found in Article 12 of the 1984 United Nations Convention against Torture . . . which imposes a duty to proceed to a ‘prompt and impartial’ investigation whenever there is a reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed . . . such a requirement is implicit in the notion of an ‘effective remedy’ under Article 13”). 88 Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, App. No. 24760/94, Eur. Ct. H.R. 103 (1998). 89 Labita v. Italy, App. No. 26772/95 Eur. Ct. H.R. 133–236 (2000). 49