A/HRC/42/20 misconduct, the lack of adequate mechanisms for reporting and the absence of an environment conducive to submitting such complaints.122 41. Another challenge to the credibility of complaints mechanisms is their perceived lack of effectiveness.123 Indeed, in some contexts, few complaints result in criminal investigations, prosecutions or sanctions,124 or result in inadequate or lighter sentencing of perpetrators of violence or ill-treatment, which in some cases is tantamount to impunity.125 In particular, there are reported instances of authorities bringing charges for abuse of authority or severe bodily injury rather than torture. 126 This may discourage victims from proceeding with their complaints or filing complaints at all. 42. While some complaint mechanisms are lacking in some States, others provide useful examples to emulate. For instance, some complaint mechanisms include a centralized filing procedure and provide for immediate medical and legal assistance to complainants. 127 Furthermore, in some countries, in all cases of death, the competent judicial authorities are immediately informed and an internal administrative procedure is initiated. 128 2. Investigations 43. The heightened duty of a State to protect the lives of individuals deprived of their liberty by the State in question creates a presumption of State responsibility for deaths in custody that can only be rebutted through a prompt, impartial, thorough and transparent investigation carried out by an independent body.129 In its general comment No. 36, the Human Rights Committee highlighted that investigations and prosecutions, where appropriate, of potentially unlawful deprivations of life were an important component of the protection of the right to life. Investigations can take various forms: preliminary investigations, non-judicial or administrative investigations and, of course, judicial investigations. Investigations into violence, death and serious injury contribute to the protection of the rights of persons deprived of their liberty and ensure that violations are documented and redressed. With regard to a death in custody, the purpose of the investigation is to clarify the circumstances surrounding the death, and to contribute to preventing the recurrence of death in custody, reducing trauma and providing an effective remedy to the next of kin and the identification, prosecution and punishment of those responsible.130 When deaths appear to be of natural causes, an adequate investigation can contribute to dispelling concerns about inadequate health care or foul play, thereby assisting States to address the presumption of responsibility for deaths in detention. 44. Judicial investigations become an obligation when there appears to be an arbitrary deprivation of life, for example, when there are reasons to believe that the cause of death was homicide or negligence.131 Investigations along with the ensuing criminal and disciplinary accountability mechanisms allow for the identification, prosecution and punishment of those responsible for violence, deaths and serious injury, ensuring proper implementation of the law and combating impunity. 45. Human rights mechanisms have repeatedly highlighted instances of failure to investigate allegations of violence or ill-treatment in situations of deprivation of liberty.132 They also extensively called on States to undertake prompt, thorough, impartial and 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 12 Ibid. Submission of Lebanon. See CCPR/C/GRC/CO/2; CEDAW/C/TUR/CO/7; CEDAW/C/GMB/CO/4-5; CEDAW/C/VEN/CO/7-8; CCPR/C/DJI/CO/1. Submission of the Public Defender (Ombudsman) of Georgia; CAT/C/MKD/CO/3. Submission of the Comisión de Derechos Humanos del Distrito Federal (Mexico); CAT/C/MKD/CO/3. Submission of Uruguay. Ibid. See Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 36; African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, general comment No 3 on the right life (article 4). ICRC, “Guidelines for Investigating Deaths in Custody”. Ibid. See CAT/C/PER/CO/5-6; CAT/C/SLV/CO/2; CAT/C/LVA/CO/3-5; CAT/C/MNE/CO/2.