prohibition against admitting any statement obtained through torture or other illtreatment. Judges and lawyers must be vigilant to the risks of torture and other illtreatment at all times during deprivation of liberty. Where allegations of torture or other ill-treatment are made, or where a judge or lawyer has reason to believe that such treatment may have occurred, they should ensure that a prompt, impartial and thorough investigation is carried out.95 It has been recognized that a “failure by the judiciary to properly and appropriately inquire into allegations of torture to induce confessions, can result in judges sustaining a system that is reliant on torture to ensure convictions,”96 and a culture of impunity.97 As noted by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture: “The diligent examination by judicial and other relevant authorities of all complaints of ill-treatment by law enforcement officials and, where appropriate, the imposition of a suitable penalty will have a strong deterrent effect. Conversely, if those authorities do not take effective action upon complaints referred to them, law enforcement officials minded to ill-treat persons in their custody will quickly come to believe that they can do so with impunity.”98 (See Chapter 3.4 on bringing detainees promptly before a judicial authority, and Chapter 6.2 on criminalizing torture and other acts of ill-treatment in domestic law.) In some jurisdictions, judges or prosecutors are given a mandate to inspect places of detention. This is an important function which enables the inspectors to examine the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty and conditions of detention, not least in order to prevent torture and ensure that the rights of persons deprived of their liberty are respected. Judges and lawyers also have a responsibility to publicly condemn acts of torture and other ill-treatment and have a central role to play in ensuring that those responsible for committing such violations are held accountable. (See Chapter 6.) Judges and lawyers must also ensure that they are not complicit in torture and other ill-treatment while carrying out their official functions. Prosecutors may be present at interrogations and must ensure that they are not involved or complicit in acts of torture or other ill-treatment, for example in order to extract confessions or obtain information. In accordance with the Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors, prosecutors
95 CAT Annual Report, UN Doc. A/56/44 (2001) §169; SPT visit report: Maldives, UN Doc. CAT/OP/MDV/1 (2009) §88; Visit report of the Special Rapporteur on torture: Kenya, UN Doc E/CN.4/2000/9/Add.4 (2000) §93(k); European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, Standards, CPT/Inf/E (2002) 1, p. 12, §45. 96 See UNAMI/OHCHR, Report on the judicial response to allegations of torture in Iraq, 2015, p.16. 97 See report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, UN Doc. A/65/274 (2010) §§1415. 98 European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, Standards, CPT/Inf/E (2002) 1, pp. 12-13, §45.
Combating torture and other ill-treatment
257