42 Part II: Challenges and opportunities by the penitentiary population and among them, clinical psychologists represent a very limited group. This has made it very difficult to obtain a unification of diagnostics criteria and adequate attention to prisoners in practice. Another problem that influences the work of psychologists in the penitentiary system is the dual role accorded to them by law, where they both have to offer psychological attention to prisoners and form part of a committee that imposes sanctions for disciplinary mistakes by prisoners. This might lead to a general lack of trust in the independence of these psychologists. Despite the widespread practice of torture, a culture of impunity still prevails in Ecuador. Even though 1,400 torture complaints were filed between 1980 and 2006 none have resulted in a sentence. In some cases, the state did initiate legal action but generally allegations of torture and ill-treatment are not investigated, legal proceedings are not initiated and most accusations continue pending in national courts. Cases brought before regional or international bodies are usually resolved through friendly settlement. The recommendations and judgments of most of these cases stipulate that Ecuador should investigate allegations of torture, punish those responsible, and provide reparations to victims. However, this is made difficult for a number of reasons. There is a general lack of independent medical experts accredited to appear before courts. Most experts are drawn from the medical-forensic and criminology departments, which are structurally placed under the national police and can therefore hardly be considered independent. At the same time, the victims and their families do not have sufficient economical resources to hire independent experts. Another element that has to be taken into consideration is that within the penal proceeding, the judge can evaluate expert evidence based on the principle of sana critica (sound judgement) of the judge. Regarding the documentation of psychological torture there is a significant lack of capacity to identify this type of violation. Psychological documentation is normally not accepted as evidence in court and psychological torture is not prohibited in the penal code, only in the constitution. Due to the principle of legality, the constitution cannot be applied di-