via torture; and inadequate maximum penalties for the use of torture and/or a tendency on the part of judges to hand down sentences at the lighter end of the scale. Specific questions focused on the issue of confessions as the main or sole pieces of evidence for criminal convictions and the link between this and the way pressure on police, prosecutors and judges to obtain convictions or “solve” cases provides a motivation for the use of torture to dispose of cases by way of confessions. This was identified as a problem in a number of the countries hosting field operations, spanning across all of the regions under consideration. One question posed was as to whether conviction rates or the percentage of cases solved were factors considered in determining promotions or evaluating the performance of police officers, prosecutors or judges. Field operations in five countries, the majority of which were in the Central Asia region, answered that this was the case for all three groups. In another six countries, spread across the three regions other than Central Asia, the answer was in the negative. Respondents in the remaining countries responded that they did not know whether these factors played a role in promotions or evaluations. Another problem raised by bodies responsible for monitoring the implementation of international conventions on torture, as well as by relevant judicial bodies, is that countries that do include torture as an offence under their national law, as required by the UNCAT, define it in a manner more restrictive than is the case in international law. This is the case in many OSCE participating States – not just those where OSCE field operations are based – and is frequently referred to in UNCAT reports. One restriction in the definition of torture involves limiting the category of persons who can be accused of the offence to law enforcement officials, thus excluding indirect sanctioning. Conversely, in some countries there are heavier penalties when the offence is committed by a law enforcement officer or public official, for instance. In some countries, the OSCE staff on the ground said that the existence of torture per se is not generally acknowledged by the authorities. In this context, field operations found that implementation of activities to directly combat these phenomena is difficult, and sometimes impossible. The response from the field operation in one country noted that the government is generally hostile to the concept of detention centre visits by any outside bodies and has rejected possible visits by an international organization. The field operations surveyed were also asked to identify difficulties they faced in implementing activities clearly and specifically targeting torture and ill-treatment. The question was only relevant in cases where it was possible to implement targeted activities of this type. A number of respondents, working in countries where the existence of torture is not even acknowledged by the authorities, therefore marked this question “not applicable”. One field operation said that talk of prison access and visits to detainees “frightens” the authorities. This issue has gained further focus in countries that are trying to establish an NPM mechanism under OPCAT. A lack of clarity as to how to advance this process was found to be a problem in many of the countries where field operations have been 22