An investigation cannot be
properly conducted if the investigator is denied access to witnesses, suspects
and relevant documents. Investigators need to ensure that they investigate with
integrity, that the rights of individuals are protected, and that evidence
collected is untainted and admissible in a court of law.
Most systems use one or more
of the following mechanisms to ensure integrity in the investigative process:
Standard
Operating Procedures
Enforcement agencies usually
follow standard procedures in conducting investigations. Developing good procedures
that are followed by investigators helps ensure that integrity mechanisms are
in place for each stage of the process. Standard procedures also
reduce the danger that investigators will make arbitrary or discriminatory
decisions, which can give rise to integrity problems.
Accurate
Written Reports
Accurate files and reports are
essential for integrity. A written file is generally kept for each complaint,
with all the information and documents collected. To handle a case, other
players in the enforcement system (e.g. prosecutors) rely on the written report
describing the evidence collected and the analysis performed by the
investigative agency.
A comprehensive written report
specifies the alleged offence, the name of the offender and other information
gathered during the investigation. The report may also include: an outline of
the objectives of any investigation; the scope and focus of the various phases
of the investigation; the names of individuals interviewed; the information and
evidence obtained, and their sources; and any follow-up measure that might be
considered in the decision on how to deal with the alleged offence. It can be
very difficult for a prosecutor or other enforcement official to prove a case
if the information collected during the investigation is incomplete or
inaccurately reported.
Appropriate
Interviews
The purpose of interviewing
witnesses or suspects is to obtain information and evidence. However, the
information is admissible in a court of law only if investigators have complied
with the procedural requirements that protect evidence and the rights of
individuals. Successful interviews are usually prepared in advance. The tone of
the interview is professional, and the focus is on the matter at issue. A good
interview may solidify that the case is prosecuted
and results in a conviction.
To avoid misunderstandings and
ensure that interviewees know why they are being questioned and who is
questioning them, investigators usually show proof of identity and explain the
reasons for asking questions. Most systems require the consent of the person to
be interviewed, unless he or she is a suspect. Investigators are particularly
advised to avoid conduct that could be perceived as threatening or as offering
favours in exchange for cooperation.
Investigators must carefully
assess the impartiality and credibility of individuals who may have a bias. They should determine the basis of any bias and counter it through
closer questioning as required. Whenever possible, investigators should obtain
corroboration of information from independent sources.
Before questioning, most
systems require suspects to be read their rights so that their statement will
be admissible in court. Suspects usually have the right to be represented by an
attorney during an interview. This right
is very strongly supported as necessary to fulfill the obligations of a State
under the ICCRP with respect to adjudicatory proceedings.[1]
Sworn
Statements
It is useful to make sure that
critical witnesses are questioned under oath and sign their statement before a
complaint or charges based on their testimony are filed. A signed statement
protects against any misinterpretation of testimony. It also provides
protection should witnesses change their testimony in court. In most trials a
sworn statement can be submitted as evidence.
It is a violation of professional norms for investigators to pressure complainants/witnesses
into signing a statement, or unduly prolonging their interrogation for this
purpose.
Accurate
Interview Notes
It is essential to record in
writing the information obtained during an investigatory interview, especially
if a signed statement is not made. The notes from the investigation may be used
as evidence for what a person said. In court, the defence counsel usually has a
right to examine the investigator's notes, at least if the investigator refers
to them when testifying.
The integrity of the interview
also depends on the accuracy of the notes. Most investigators try to take
word-for-word notes of an interview. In some cases, the interview may be
recorded electronically. A recording is much more accurate than handwritten
notes but can raise concerns. Some systems do not allow taping without prior
permission or a warrant.
[1] UN
Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 32, op. cit.
