A/HRC/20/14 • In all cases, once an investigation has been opened, the authorities must ensure that the next-of-kin are kept fully informed of its progress, and are provided with an adequate opportunity to participate. • The investigation must be capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible. The principle of accountability extends to situations in which it is alleged that public officials have caused death or life-threatening injury through the negligent use of lethal force, or have negligently failed to prevent a terrorist act. • In cases where State responsibility is at issue the investigative authorities must be wholly independent from those potentially implicated, 58 which implies not only a lack of hierarchical or institutional connection but also a practical independence.59 Those potentially implicated should have no supervisory role, whether direct or indirect, over those conducting the investigation. 60 • There must be a sufficient element of public scrutiny of the investigation and its results to secure public accountability. This is essential to maintaining public confidence in the authorities’ adherence to the rule of law, and prevents any appearance of collusion in, or tolerance of, unlawful acts or omissions. 61 • The authorities must have taken reasonable steps to secure and evaluate all potentially relevant evidence. Investigators should commission the necessary forensic and post-mortem reports, providing a complete and objective account of the scientific findings; record all potentially relevant evidential sources; conduct site visits; and identify, question and take comprehensive written statements from all relevant witnesses.62 Any conclusions must be based on a complete, objective and impartial analysis of the evidence, including an examination of the authorities’ own actions.63 • In all cases, investigators must be genuinely impartial and must not harbour preconceptions about the matter they are investigating or the identity of those responsible for any fatalities. Nor should they approach the investigation in a way that might promote or protect the interests of any public official who may be at fault.64 They should be demonstrably free of undue influence. 65 • If the investigation leads to criminal or other judicial proceedings, there must be a possibility for the effective participation of the next-of-kin.66 37. The victim or the victim's family must in all cases be provided with the information necessary to exercise any rights they may have in domestic law to participate in criminal proceedings against the suspected perpetrator. All States should establish a support service to assist victims of terrorism throughout the process, until the conclusion of any ordinary 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 12 See ECHR, Güleç v. Turkey, no. 21593/93, paras. 81-82; Öğur v. Turkey, no. 21594/93, paras. 91-92. See for example ECHR, Batı and Others v. Turkey, no. 33097/96 and 57834/00, para. 135; Ergı v. Turkey, no. 23818/94, paras. 83-84. ECHR, Davydov and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 17674/02 and 39081/02, para. 277. See ECHR, Güleç v. Turkey, no. 21593/93, para. 82; Gül v. Turkey, no. 22676/93, para. 93. For a list of mandatory investigative steps see ECHR, Gül v. Turkey, no. 22676/93, paras. 89-90; also Tanrıkulu v. Turkey, no. 23763/94, para. 109; Salman v. Turkey, no. 21986/93, para. 106; Musayev and Others v. Russia, nos. 57941/00, 58699/00 and 60403/00, para. 162; Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, para. 113; also footnote 62 above. ECHR, Finogenov and Others v. The Russian Federation, nos. 18299/03 and 27311/03, paras. 272, 274. By analogy with the principles of judicial independence identified by the Human Rights Committee, communication No. 387/1989, Karttunen v. Finland, Views adopted on 23 October 1992, para. 7.2. Manfred Nowak, UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (see footnote 20 above), pp. 320–321. ECHR, McCann v. The United Kingdom, no. 18984/91, para. 162.