E/CN.4/1989/15 page 35 been able to complete the inquiry. In many cases the victims had been unwilling to testify, either because they were frightened right from the beginning or because they had received death threats before or after giving testimony. In other cases which had been reliably documented, it had been impossible to identify the military officers allegedly involved in torture, since they were only known by nicknames. As an example, he mentioned that a completed case had been declared inadmissible, since the suspect was not known under the name given in the file. 176. When a case has been completed and the allegation of torture has been reliably attested, it has to be decided whether it will be brought before a military or a civilian court. Under article 10 of Act No. 24.150 "offences defined in the Code of Military Justice and committed in the course of duty (delitos de funcidn) are exclusively within the competence of the military courts, save offences which are unrelated to the service". During the discussions he had, it became clear to the Special Rapporteur that interpretation of the term "delitos de funcion" was a highly controversial matter. According to some sources, serious common crimes, like homicide, kidnapping or torture, committed by members of the armed forces could never be seen as "delitos de funcion" and should therefore always be tried by civilian courts. The military, however, take the position that all crimes committed by the armed forces in the emergency areas are "delitos de funcidn" and therefore should be referred to military courts. In December 1986, the Senate approved unanimously a bill amending Act No. 24.150, limiting the "delitos de funcion" to offences mentioned in the Military Penal Code and stating that all serious crimes mentioned in the Civil Penal Code should be tried in civilian courts. At the time of the Special Rapporteur's visit, the bill was still pending in the Chamber of Deputies which had repeatedly postponed its consideration. 177. If there is a controversy as to whether a case should go to a civilian or a military court (in the latter case the Fiscal has to hand over the dossier to the Auditor (military public prosecutor)), the decision must be taken by the Supreme Court. The President of the Supreme Court told the Special Rapporteur that each case was taken on its own merit but that as a rule of thumb, it could be considered that abuses committed by members of the armed forces in the absence of orders from their superiors (e.g. crimes committed by military personnel when off duty) came within the jurisdiction of civilian courts, whereas abuses committed when under orders from their superiors went to the military courts. In actual practice, this meant that most cases were referred to military courts where the proceedings were secret. Although in some cases members of the police force had been tried and sentenced to sometimes - severe prison terms, the Special Rapporteur was also informed that, at the time of his visit, no member of the armed forces had as yet been convicted by a military tribunal. Concern was expressed that sometimes members of civilian courts dealing with such cases had been subjected to threats and harassment. The phenomenon of harassment and intimidation of members of the judiciary, however, was also quite common in the case of trials of members of subversive groups, which contributed to a climate of fear within the judiciary. According to several authorities, this has increased the feelings of discontent within the population about the administration of justice in the country.