CAT/C/39/2 page 42 concern with the seriousness of the existing problems, as well as its political will to improve. However, tens of thousands of persons are still held in delegacias and elsewhere in the penitentiary system where torture and similar ill-treatment continues to be “meted out on a widespread and systematic basis”. 36 The Committee has defined systematic torture by stating that “the Committee considers torture is practised systematically when it is apparent that the torture cases reported have not occurred fortuitously in a particular place or at a particular time, but are seen to be habitual, widespread and deliberate in at least a considerable part of the territory of the country in question. Torture may in fact be of a systematic character without resulting from the direct intention of a Government. It may be the consequence of factors which the Government has difficulty in controlling, and its existence may indicate a discrepancy between policy as determined by the central Government and its implementation by the local administration. Inadequate legislation which in practice allows room for the use of torture may also add to the systematic nature of this practice”.37 179. Police investigations into alleged acts of torture or ill-treatment have been criticized as ineffective. Abuses by the police in carrying out these investigations are reported to be common. There is a reported lack of willingness by police officers to investigate fellow officers. In this connection, the corporate nature of the corregedorias may lead police officers to be unwilling to investigate their own colleagues. It was repeatedly suggested that it usually takes a long time before information on allegations of torture reaches the Public Prosecutor’s office from the corregedorias and a criminal inquiry is initiated. 180. Furthermore, the constitutional debate on the power of the Public Prosecutor’s Office to initiate independent investigations into allegations of torture is still pending. The Constitution has been interpreted by some as providing the Public Prosecutor’s Office with a more active role and allowing it to proceed with criminal investigations and indict officials involved in criminal activities, such as torture, in cases where there is sufficient prima facie evidence. Other commentators, including the police, claim that constitutional provisions require that a police inquiry is necessary and that preventing the causes of torture would be more appropriate. The Committee members consider that public prosecutors should be able to initiate cases rather than having to rely on evidence collected and forwarded by the police. 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. 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 36 Report of the visit to Brazil of the Special Rapporteur on Torture, E/CN.4/2001/66 Add.2, para. 166. 37 A/48/44 Add.1, para. 39 and A/56/44, para. 163.