A/HRC/45/13/Add.3 prosecutor and to transmit to that judge all information, minutes and acts relating thereto.” 138 In Portugal, the offence of enforced disappearance is criminalized as crime against humanity pursuant to article 9 (i) of Law No. 31/2004 of 22 July 2004. It is classified as a “public offence” (“crime público”), meaning that a formal complaint by the victim or other person is not a precondition for the competent authorities to launch an investigation, initiating the latter ex officio.139 B. Prompt legal remedy to determine the whereabouts of the disappeared persons 24. The standards of a prompt and effective investigation include the securing of evidence such as eyewitness testimonies and gathering forensic evidence. 140 The investigation has to be conducted promptly and in a reasonably expeditious manner.141 25. In assessing the effectiveness of the criminal investigation of cases of enforced disappearances, the European Court has not explicitly considered their outcome. Instead the European Court focused on the delays in the investigation and deficiencies in securing evidence. The Court considered the investigation by State authorities to be ineffective if the authorities took witness statements with an inappropriate delay in time exceeding two months after the notification of the disappearance while starting to conduct official inquiries only two years after the occurrence of the disappearance.142 26. The European Court stated in Timurtaş v. Turkey (paragraphs 89 and 90): “[the Court] notes the length of time it took before an official investigation got under way and before statements from witnesses were obtained, the inadequate questions put to the witnesses and the manner in which relevant information was ignored and subsequently denied by the investigating authorities. The Court is in particular struck by the fact that it was not until two years after the applicant’s son had been taken into detention that enquiries were made of the gendarmes in Şırnak. (…) In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the investigation carried out into the disappearance of the applicant’s son was inadequate and therefore in breach of the State’s procedural obligations to protect the right to life.” 27. The European Court found a failure to carry out an effective criminal investigation under Article 2 ECHR in the event of an applicant remaining without information in relation to the progress of the investigation. Similar significant and inappropriate delays and failings in the investigation process led the European Court to find repeated violations by States when they did not comply with their procedural obligations arising under Article 2 ECHR in enforced disappearance cases. 28. The European Court stated in Baysayeva v. Russia (paragraphs 126 and 127): “Such delays by themselves compromised the effectiveness of the investigation and could not but have had a negative impact on the prospects for arriving at the truth. While accepting that some explanation for these delays can be found in the exceptional circumstances that have prevailed in Chechnya and to which the Government refer, the Court finds that in the present case they clearly exceeded any acceptable limitations on efficiency that could be tolerated in dealing with such a serious crime.”143 29. However, in Palić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, the European Court did not find a violation of the procedural duty to carry out an investigation that is capable of leading to the identification of the perpetrators despite of several delays in the proceedings. Instead, the European Court concluded that the authorities carried out the appropriate investigative 138 139 140 141 142 143 26 France, Code of Criminal Procedure of 2 March 1952, Article 40, para. 3. Portugal, Law No. 31/2004 of 22 July 2004, Article 9 (i). European Court of Human Rights, Salman v. Turkey, Application No. 21986/93, 26 June 2000, para. 106; see Section II, B of the Thematic Report. European Court of Human Rights, Selmouni v. France, Application No. 25803/94, 28 July 1999, paras. 78–79. European Court of Human Rights, Timurtaş v. Turkey, (see footnote 119) paras. 47 and 89. European Court of Human Rights, Baysayeva v. Russia, paras. 126 and 127; European Court of Human Rights, Aslakhanova and others v. Russia (see footnote 147) para.123.