CAT/C/AZE/CO/4 Evidence obtained through torture 18. The Committee is concerned about numerous and consistent allegations that persons deprived of their liberty have been subjected to torture or ill-treatment for the purpose of compelling a confession, and that such confessions have subsequently been admitted as evidence in court. While noting that under article 125.2.2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure evidence obtained through the use of violence, threat, deception, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading acts are not admissible in criminal proceedings and recalling the decision by the plenum of the Supreme Court of 10 March 2000 providing guidance to all courts not to accept evidence obtained through the use of torture, abuse or physical or psychological coercion, the Committee is further concerned at the State party’s failure to provide the Committee with information on cases in which judges have deemed confessions inadmissible on the grounds that they were obtained through torture or with data on the number of cases in which judges have sought investigations into allegations made by defendants that they confessed to a crime as a result of torture (art. 15). 19. The State party should deliver a clear message through appropriate channels and immediately take steps to ensure that, in practice, statements made as a result of torture may not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against the person accused of torture. The State party should review cases of convictions based solely on confessions, recognizing that many of these may have been based upon evidence obtained through torture or ill-treatment, and, as appropriate, provide prompt and impartial investigations and take appropriate remedial measures. The State party should ensure that any persons convicted on the basis of coerced evidence or as a result of torture or ill-treatment are afforded a new trial and adequate redress. The State party should provide the Committee with information on any cases in which confessions were deemed inadmissible on the grounds that they were obtained through torture and indicate whether any officials have been prosecuted and punished for extracting such confessions. Minors 20. While taking note of the State party’s efforts to reform the juvenile justice system, the Committee is concerned about the reported cases of ill-treatment and torture used to obtain incriminating confessions and testimonies from minors and that no effective investigations have been conducted in respect of such allegations. The Committee is further concerned that a law on juvenile justice is yet to be adopted (arts. 2, 11 and 16). 21. The State party should systematically ensure that minors have a lawyer and/or a trusted adult present at every phase of a proceeding, including during questioning by a police officer, whether or not the minor has been deprived of liberty. The State party should halt all practices involving abuse of minors in places of detention and punish perpetrators. The State party should enact juvenile justice legislation, including age-appropriate safeguards against torture for minors. National preventive mechanism 22. While welcoming the establishment of a national preventive mechanism by the Constitutional Act of 24 June 2011 and while noting the State party’s affirmation that staff of the mechanism have the right to visit places of detention without prior notification, the Committee remains concerned that according to numerous reports this body has not been effective in addressing the main problematic issues related to the prevention of torture and human rights violations in places of deprivation of liberty (arts. 2 and 11-13). 23. The Committee urges the State party to establish a national system that independently, effectively and regularly monitors and inspects all places of detention 5