E/CN.4/1989/15 page 45 217. If, after the period of incommunicado detention, the detainee brings a complaint about torture, he has to be examined by a public health officer immediately. The Special Rapporteur was told that counter-expertise by a doctor of the detainee's own choice was not admitted as evidence of torture. During his talks with the Board of the Turkish Medical Association, the opinion was expressed that the public health officers were generally not trained to examine patients subjected to torture and to recognize cases of torture. One of the doctors present told the Special Rapporteur that he himself had been instructed to carry out such examinations when serving in the army, but that after a certain period he had asked to be discharged from such duties since he did not consider himself qualified to perform it satisfactorily. It was suggested that an independent body of qualified and experienced doctors (e.g. to be appointed by the Medical Association) should be established and authorized to carry out professional investigations of claims of torture. 218. When an accused person states during a trial that his confession was obtained by torture, that he has filed a complaint against the alleged torturer with the public prosecutor and that his confession should not be accepted as evidence, it is not necessary for the court to await the verdict in the case opened against the official who allegedly carried out the torture. Unless it is prima facie clear that torture has been used, (in which case the accused person must be acquitted), the main trial can continue and be concluded. In the event that in an appeal the court finds that torture has been practised, the case is sent back to the court of first instance and the trial is reopened. It was asked why the court itself was not obliged to investigate the accusation of torture and the answer was that that would cause undue delay. The judiciary system had already been criticized for being too slow and it had therefore been decided to open parallel cases on the torture complaints. 219. On the other hand, concern was expressed that this way of handling torture complaints could result in a long period of detention or imprisonment which could afterwards prove to be unjustified. Some cases were cited in which persons had spent several years in prison before it was concluded that evidence had been obtained under torture. 220. After parliamentary approval of the United Nations Convention against Torture and its publication in the Official Gazette of 10 August 1988, article 15 of the Convention was invoked by the defence in some cases. This article states that each State party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings ... The reaction of courts to this plea has been that, since this article addresses itself to State parties, its application should not be regarded as falling within the competence of the court, but rather as a matter falling within the competence of the legislature. In discussions with representatives of the Turkish Bar Association, concern was expressed that that might lead to the rejection of appeals based on article 15, with the argument that internal legislation must be changed before article 15 could be applied and that, consequently, the applicability of the Convention would be seriously weakened.