Undertaking Effective Investigations A Guide for National Human Rights Institutions THE MULRUNJI CASE COMMENTS AND/OR RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE SECOND INQUEST Impartiality, and the appearance of impartiality, should be the first priority when selecting officers to conduct investigations into deaths in custody. • Officers investigating a death in custody should be from another region. • The involvement of officers who knew or were friends of S/Sgt. Hurley was inappropriate and compromised the integrity of the investigation. • Investigating officers should be explicitly required to disclose any relationship with an involved officer. • There should be CMC (i.e. independent oversight) involvement in investigating deaths in custody, as soon as possible after the death has occurred. NOTE: The Coroner in the third inquest agreed with these findings and conclusions. He noted the “flaws of the QPS investigation into this death, in terms of transparency, independence and thoroughness”. 4. INVESTIGATIVE POWERS The Paris Principles state that the NHRI should have the power to “freely consider any questions falling within its competence” and to “hear any person and obtain any information and any documents necessary for assessing situations falling within its competence”. To do so, the NHRI needs clear and unambiguous powers to collect evidence and to conduct investigations. The absence of such powers may lead to confusion, delay and incomplete investigations. Ideally, an NHRI should have the following powers. Identify and frame any issue(s) as the NHRI deems fit The NHRI can decide which aspects of a complaint it will or will not investigate and how to frame the issue(s) for investigation, including investigations into systemic human rights issues if necessary. Conduct “own motion” (suo moto) investigations The NHRI should not need a complaint to begin an investigation. Summons or subpoena witnesses The NHRI should be able to summon witnesses to give evidence. Compel evidence under oath In jurisdictions where evidence is usually given under oath or affirmation, the NHRI should be able to administer an oath or affirmation and take evidence accordingly. Those who choose to lie can, theoretically, be prosecuted for perjury. Right to access any person The NHRI should have the right to speak to anyone relevant to its inquiry, even if they are in custody. Access to the person should not be delayed. 16