conclude that the both Institutions lacked impartiality and independence. 225. The Complainants also allege that the Victims did not have an impartial and objective investigation. They aver that the Victims reported the alleged incidences to the police after the alleged assault, but the police was unwilling to interview potential witnesses, take down statements, or assist them in any way. They also submit that the PPO's decision to halt the investigations due to amongst other reasons, discrepancies in the Victims' Statements is immaterial because according to them, these discrepancies were mere omissions which have no material bearing on the present Communication. 226. According to the Respondent State, the investigations carried out by the PPO have all the specified safeguards for criminal investigation according to the Egyptian legal regime, particularly the impartiality and confidentiality of the investigations.85 Furthermore, according to the Respondent State, the decision reached by the FPO, after its detailed and scrupulous investigations which showed that there were no grounds for initiating criminal proceedings "temporarily" due to the inability to identify the perpetrators was logical and sound. 227. The UN Human Rights Committee has shown that complaints must be investigated promptly and impartially so as to make the remedy effective. In its General Comment No. 20, the Committee provides that: "Complaints must be investigated promptly and impartially by competent authorities so as to make the remedy effective."86 228. The European Court has also expressed the importance of carrying out thorough investigations that are capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible for any ill-treatment.87 Moreover, when examining whether an investigation is effective, the European Court applied the following test in some of its cases: whether the authorities reacted effectively to the complaints at the relevant time;88 the length of time it takes for the investigation to commence;89 and whether there were delays in taking statements from the victims.90 229. In Assenov & Others v. Bulgaria, the European Court clearly addressed the notion of effective investigation that is not impartial and independent. In deciding on the alleged police misconduct against the Complainant, the Court noted that "It was necessary to take evidence from independent witnesses," adding that ... "the examination of two further witnesses, one of whom had only a vague recollection of the incidents in question, was not sufficient to rectify the deficiencies in the investigation up to that point."91 The Court concluded that the lack of a thorough and effective investigation into the applicant's arguable claim that he had been beaten by police officers violates Article 3 of the Convention.92 230. Accordingly, borrowing from the European Court, it follows that where Victims raise arguable claims to have been ill-treated in breach of violations in the African Charter, the investigation carried out must be prompt and impartial to be effective. An impartial investigation should involve a thorough or scrupulous procedure which leads to results that identify the perpetrators and punishes those responsible for the illtreatment and other violations alleged. 231. The African Commission has noted the arguments presented by the parties to this Communication and concurs with the submissions made by the Complainants that the investigation carried out by the PPO was not impartial, which jeopardised the Victims' right to an effective remedy. Even though the Respondent State describes the steps taken by the PPO during the investigation and concludes that the PPO did not prosecute due to lack of sufficient information from the Victims, and discrepancies in their Statements and medical reports, the African Commission finds that the PPO lacked sufficient evidence on which to decide whether or not the violations took place. 232. Additionally, apart from outlining the discrepancies which are described as omissions by the Complainants, and which the Commission agrees do not have any material bearing on the investigation of the complaints put forward by the Victims, this Commission notes that the Respondent State failed to substantiate its arguments about the discrepancies in the medical reports. 233. In order to be impartial, it would have been of paramount relevance in the investigative processes for the PPO to obtain, if necessary proprio motu additional evidence from other sources by giving room for more witnesses in the scene to make illustrative statements that could corroborate the statements made by the Victims. Instead, the PPO gave undue attention to the 'discrepancies' made by the Victims which made it arrive at the tenuous conclusion that it could not proceed with the investigations because the perpetrators could not be identified, creating an appearance of an actual lack of impartiality. 234. According to this Commission, based on the evidence before it, there were procedural deficiencies that affected the final decision that was taken by the PPO in this Communication. This obliges the Commission to conclude that the Victims were indeed deprived of an effective and impartial investigation from the PPO. Having said this however, the African Commission is of the opinion that the impartiality of 21