A/HRC/22/52 their relatives and the public53 (subject only to legitimate national security limitations that are adjudged to be strictly necessary by an independent and impartial judicial or quasijudicial tribunal)54; and to protect the physical and moral integrity of victims and witnesses against reprisals and threats.55 30. To meet the requirements of international law, such an investigative body must be genuinely independent of the officials implicated in the violations.56 This implies not only a lack of hierarchical or institutional connection but also a practical independence.57 Those potentially implicated should have no supervisory role, whether direct or indirect, over those conducting the investigation.58 In all cases, investigators must approach their task with genuine impartiality and must not harbour preconceptions about the matter they are investigating or the identity of those responsible for any fatalities. They should be demonstrably free of undue influence.59 The investigators must evaluate the evidence objectively and reach impartial conclusions.60 The authorities “must always make a serious attempt to find out what happened and should not rely on hasty or ill-founded conclusions to close their investigation or to use as the basis of their decisions”.61 The obligation to carry out an effective investigation imposes a duty to seek mutual legal assistance from other states, including those allegedly implicated in the violations, through diplomatic or judicial inquiries, the results of which should also be disclosed.62 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 12 United Nations Joint Study on Secret Detention, op. cit., footnote 1, para. 292(f); ECtHR, Kelly and Others v. United Kingdom, Application No. 30054/96, Judgment 4 May 2001, para. 118; Anguelova v. Bulgaria, Application No. 38361/97, Judgment 13 June 2002, para. 140; IACtHR, Plan de Sanchez, op. cit., footnote 45, para. 81; Moiwana Community v. Suriname, Judgment 15 June 2005, (Ser. C) No. 124, para. 205. See further paras. 38–43 below. United Nations General Assembly Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, Art. 13; Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances, General Comment on the Right to the Truth, in Annual Report of the Working Group, United Nations Doc. A/HRC/16/48 (2011) para. 10; Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Kawas-Fernandez v. Honduras, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment 3 April 2009, (Ser. C) No. 124, para 205. The United Nations Joint Study on Secret Detention, op. cit., footnote 1, para. 292(k), concluded that under international human rights law “States have the obligation to provide witness protection, which is also a precondition for combatting secret detention effectively”. ECtHR, Güleç v. Turkey, no. 21593/93, paras. 81-82; Öğur v. Turkey, no. 21594/93, paras. 91-92. The United Nations Joint study on Secret Detention, op. cit., footnote. 1, at para. 292(d), concluded that “[i]nstitutions strictly independent of those that have allegedly been involved in secret detention should promptly investigate any allegations of secret detention and extraordinary rendition”. See also Marty III, op. cit., footnote 15, para. 55; and Flautre Report, op. cit., footnote 15, para. 3.2. Batı and Others v. Turkey, no. 33097/96 and 57834/00, para. 135; Ergı v. Turkey, no. 23818/94, paras. 83-84. Davydov and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 17674/02 and 39081/02, para. 277. See Manfred Nowak and Elizabeth McArthur, The United Nations Convention Against Torture, A Commentary, pp. 531-532 (New York, Oxford University Press, 2008). Finogenov and Others v. The Russian Federation, nos. 18299/03 and 27311/03, paras. 272, 274. El-Masri, op. cit., footnote 26, para. 183. IACtHR, Goiburd and Others v. Paraguay, Judgment 22 September 2006, (Ser. C) No. 153 (2006) para. 5; United Nations Convention on Enforced Disappearances, op. cit., footnote 14, Article 14; United Nations Basic Principles on Remedy and Reparation for Gross Human Rights and Humanitarian Law Violations, op. cit., footnote 33, para. 4; International Law Commission Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, commended to the attention of Member States by General Assembly Resolutions 56/83 of 12 December 2001 and 69/35 of 2 December 2004, (“ILC Articles on State Responsibility”), Article 41(1).