CAT/C/39/2 page 62 infractions directly by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, without police participation, is still controversial. This issue is under examination by the Supreme Court. Despite this situation of lack of legal definition, there are concrete examples of special police teams operating directly with the Public Prosecutor’s Office. “181. Proposals have been made to replace the preliminary police investigation with an investigation led by a prosecutor and controlled by an investigating judge, whereby all detained persons would be brought before an investigating judge and only confessions made before him/her would be considered admissible. The Committee members support this proposal, but note that no action has been taken in this respect to date.” 258. The Brazilian justice system does not include judicial inquiry or “investigative judges”. The creation of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, with the same impediments and guarantees as those of judges, aims precisely at charging another institution with the task of penal prosecution. The task of judging, with independence and impartiality, is reserved to magistrates. This concept is inspired in the accusatory model of penal procedure. 259. The system of evaluation of evidence adopted in Brazilian law, known as rational persuasion of the judges, does not establish a value relationship among pieces of evidence and requires the judge to give the reasons for his or her decision. Besides, “… the defendant’s confession ceases to be conclusive proof of his (her) guilt. All evidence is relative; none has a decisive value or necessarily more prestige that another.” (Exposé on the Penal Procedure Code, item VII). Thus, even the confession during the inquiry, by itself, unaccompanied by other evidence to indicate the authorship of the offense by the defendant, may not be enough to bring about his (her) conviction. “182. Another factor that contributes to impunity is that judges do not apply the 1997 Torture Law and prefer to classify cases of torture as bodily harm or abuse of authority. The federalization of the crime of torture has been proposed as a possible means of overcoming the difficulties in the implementation of the Torture Law. The Committee members found it regrettable that the procedure established by the Constitutional amendment 45/2004, whereby the Superior Court of Justice is competent, upon request of the Federal Prosecutor General, to transfer a case concerning serious violations of human rights (including torture) from the local courts to the federal courts has rarely been used.” 260. The Government lacks data that would enable it to recognize that the “Lei contra a Tortura” (Anti-Torture Law) is not being effectively applied by the judicial authorities. Similarly, there are no available data on the result of denunciations (penal procedures) of crimes of torture and the result of convictions for this crime or a less serious one (such as physical harm). From the issues raised by CAT’s Report it will be important to look into this situation and search for adequate solutions together with the Judiciary Branch. 261. The reform of the Judicial Branch accorded special treatment to serious violations against human rights, by means of the possibility of the transfer of competence to the Federal Justice. According to § 5 of article 109 of the Federal Constitution, “in cases of grave violations of human rights, the General Prosecutor, with a view to ensuring compliance with obligations stemming from international treaties on human rights of which Brazil is a Party, may raise before the Superior Court of Justice, at any time during the inquiry or the procedure, the shifting