A/HRC/22/53/Add.2 indicate that in those four years 220 law enforcement officials were investigated for acts of violence, including other forms of abuse of power. Although the statistics do not allow for further assessment due to lack of information, the Special Rapporteur notes with concern that it appears that no persons have been prosecuted or convicted under article 231-1 of the Criminal Code. Officials who were prosecuted were charged with battery or assault, but not torture. Most of the 220 officials are still under investigation or have been found not guilty. Those convicted received minor sentences, such as a fine or suspension, and only a few received a sentence. 29. The Special Rapporteur notes that there is an apparent absence of convictions under article 231-1 of the Criminal Code. He concludes that given the failure to impose genuine disciplinary measures or to bring any significant number of cases against State officials accused of torture, an atmosphere of impunity seems to exist with regard to recent years as well as with regard to the gross, large-scale human rights violations that took place between 1956 and 1999. 30. In addition, it is imperative for Morocco to prosecute public officials who order, condone or cover up torture in flagrant abuse of their superior authority, including situations where they knew or ought to have known that the crime of torture was about to be, was being or had been committed. 4. Burden of proof and independent medical examinations 31. When the offence on trial involves a crime that carries a penalty of five or more years in prison, the Code of Criminal Procedure provides no special instructions on how the court is to treat police statements: it is presumed that such statements are evidence like any other, to be considered on their merits. However, in the case of infractions that occasion a sentence of less than five years, the rules of evidence are different. Under article 290 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court is to deem a statement prepared by the judicial police as trustworthy unless the defendant can demonstrate that it is not. This presumption places an unfair burden of proof on the defendant to disprove the truthfulness of a statement that the police have written up and attributed to him with no other witnesses present, and gives the court a basis for not going beyond a perfunctory inquiry into the defendant’s claim of torture or ill-treatment, unless he has clear signs of torture on his body. 32. In this context, the Special Rapporteur notes with satisfaction the public statement made by the Minister of Justice and Liberties on 27 September 2012, after the Special Rapporteur’s visit, declaring his will to launch a new project to video record all statements made to the police during the investigation and interrogation period. However, the Special Rapporteur notes that this measure is not sufficient to prevent torture or mistreatment. He reiterates the fact that one of the fundamental safeguards against torture remains the right of access by lawyers at all stages of the investigation process and particularly from the moment of actual apprehension. 33. Government statistics indicate that in 2011 only 33 medical examinations have been ordered (20 by the General Prosecutor’s Office and 13 by investigative judges), and in 2010 the General Prosecutor’s Office and the investigative judges ordered 21 and 16 medical examinations, respectively. It is not clear, however, if this small number of medical examinations were all related to torture allegations. 34. Furthermore there is no systematic approach or randomly undertaken forensic assessment at the time of detention and release. There is an urgent need to establish mechanisms that can guarantee qualified, impartial and independent forensic examination of detainees that does not depend only on the request of the police or legal authority. 35. The Special Rapporteur reviewed a sample of medical certificates, and notes with concern that the majority of medical assessments that are made for forensic purposes are 9