CAT/C/39/2 page 45 194. Generally forensic institutes and their doctors are economically dependent of the police authorities. Thus, most States lack an independent forensic institute. Considering that most allegations of torture and ill-treatment are against police agents, this lack of independence can seriously compromise a diligent and prompt forensic examination with accurate results. In addition, it has been repeatedly reported that all forensic institutes do not have sufficient financial, technical and human resources to carry out their functions adequately. 195. In practice, the forensic examination of detainees is carried out only at the request of the police or legal authority, such as a judge or prosecutor. This reduces the possibility that a possible victim of torture will be medically examined. In many cases, medical examinations are superficial or are carried out many days after the aggression has taken place, when external signs of such activity will have already disappeared. Many doctors lack professional training in forensic medicine and are unable to identify the injuries characteristic of ill-treatment or torture. 196. In the light of these considerations, the Committee makes the following recommendations: (a) Complaints alleging torture by public officials should be promptly, fully and impartially investigated and offenders should be prosecuted under the 1997 Torture Law and penalized appropriately; (b) The states’ Public Prosecutors’ Offices should be empowered to initiate and carry out investigations into any allegations of torture and should be provided with the necessary financial and human resources to allow them to fulfil this responsibility; (c) An effective application of the Constitutional safeguard of federalization of human rights crimes, in particular torture, which allows the Federal Prosecutor-General to request a transfer of certain human rights violations (including torture) from State to federal jurisdiction, should be ensured; (d) Accused officers should be suspended from their duties pending the outcome of any investigation into alleged torture and ill-treatment and any subsequent legal or disciplinary proceedings; (e) The judiciary should be encouraged to impose alternative sentences to detention as provided for by the law. The imposition of long periods of detention or imprisonment for relatively minor offences should be avoided as should close regime custody; (f) The prosecution should carry the burden of proof where there are allegations that a confession was extracted under torture; (g) Only statements or confessions made in a presence of a judge should be admissible as evidence in criminal proceedings; (h) In order to ensure impartial investigations and safeguard the rights of all persons deprived of their liberty, the State party should consider the creation of an Office of an Investigating Judge;