CAT/C/39/2 page 78 333. On this item, see comments to paragraph 183 of the Report. “(f) The prosecution should carry the burden of proof where there are allegations that a confession was extracted under torture;” 334. The probative system in Brazil is that of free motivated belief or rational persuasion. The jurisprudence, on its part, has established the understanding that the judicial decision must be grounded on proof produced under the adversary principle. Thus, police inquiries, whose evidence is not produced under that principle, are very valuable for the formation of the opinion delicti and consequently for the initiation of the judicial proceeding. But they are not sufficient as grounds for the decision of the court. Draft Bill no. 4.202/2001, which reformulates the ordinary and summary proceedings provided for in the Brazilian Code of Penal Procedure, provides that the sentence of conviction cannot be exclusively grounded on evidence produced during the inquiry phase, thus establishing a position already based on jurisprudence. 335. Therefore, a confession at the police precinct, in any circumstance, only has a relative value as proof. In cases where the defendant alleges having been tortured, it is up to the Public Prosecutor to act in order to investigate the allegation, including for the punishment of those responsible. “(g) Only statements or confessions made in a presence of a judge should be admissible as evidence in criminal proceedings;” 336. On this question, see comments to paragraphs 181 and 196 of the Report. “(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;” 337. The Brazilian Government would appreciate additional clarification from the Committee on the compatibility of the above recommendation with that contained in item “b” on the recognition of investigative powers to the Public Prosecutor in cases of allegations of torture. The two recommendations would seem to be mutually exclusive, when they suggest granting to different authorities the power to conduct and direct investigations. Additionally, on this matter, see comments to paragraph 181. 338. Still on the question of “investigative judges”, the Brazilian Government notes that their compatibility with the respect for human rights could be the object of controversy even in international protection mechanisms. It refers in particular to jurisprudence emanating from the European Court on Human Rights on the due process of law and the impartiality of judges, in the framework of the interpretation and application of article 6, paragraph 1, of the European Convention. The Strasbourg Court has already declared that impartiality “usually denotes absence of prejudice or predisposition”, and that “its existence cannot be tested in several ways (…) a distinction can be made in this context between a subjective approach, which is the effort to highlight the personal conviction of a given judge in a given case, and an objective approach, which is to determine whether he offered enough assurance to exclude any legitimate doubt on