CAT/OP/BRA/1 prohibition against unlawfully-obtained evidence, confessions, including confessions obtained by torture, are reportedly used in judicial proceedings. 31. The SPT strongly recommends that judges refuse to accept confessions when there are reasonable grounds to believe that these have been obtained by means of torture or ill-treatment. In such cases, judges shall immediately notify the prosecution so an investigation can be initiated. 3. Oversight and complaint mechanisms 32. The SPT took note of the existence of oversight and complaint mechanisms in several of the places it visited. These mechanisms included police ombudspersons (ouvidorías), internal affairs units (corregedorías), and surveillance judges. However, the SPT received several allegations from detainees interviewed about being punished for submitting complaints and about not receiving an answer to them. Interviewees also alleged that judges rarely visited them. The SPT wishes to emphasize that the mere existence of complaints mechanisms is not enough; they must be, and must be seen to be, independent and impartial, and should offer guarantees of effectiveness, promptness and expeditiousness. 33. In this regard, the SPT recommends that all persons deprived of their liberty be informed about their right to submit direct and confidential complaints to the authority responsible for the administration of the place of detention, to higher authorities and to authorities with remedial powers. Information about this right should be provided in a language they can understand and in writing at the time of arrival at the place of detention, and should be made generally known throughout all the places of detention, through signs or posters posted visibly in places of detention. The right to submit complaints should be guaranteed in practice and complaints should be received uncensored as to substance and be considered and replied to without undue delay. No reprisals or other forms of prejudice should be suffered by those making a complaint. Relevant authorities should keep a record of all complaints received, including their nature, the institution where it originated, date of receipt, date of decisions, the nature of decision and any action taken as a result. Such registers shall be made available to external monitoring bodies. 4. Institute for Forensic Medicine 34. Most institutes for forensic medicine in Brazil are subordinated to the States’ Secretariats for Public Security, which control the police. The SPT is concerned that this may impact negatively on the independence of forensic doctors and their capacity to perform medical examinations without undue interference. 35. The SPT recommends that forensic institutes be made fully independent from public security secretariats. The SPT also recommends that the State party establish a system of independent examinations in accordance with the Istanbul Protocol, 15 under which qualified forensic doctors and psychologists shall carry out exhaustive investigations when the doctor who has checked the detainee has grounds for supposing that the person has been subject to torture and/or ill-treatment. 15 The Manual on Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the “Istanbul Protocol”), adopted in 1999, HR/P/PT8/Rev.1. 7