CAT/C/HND/CO/2 torture and ill-treatment between 2010 and 2014, with the most serious cases being referred to the Public Prosecution Service. Between 2009 and 2013, the Office of the Special Prosecutor for Human Rights submitted 54 applications for prosecution against 92 police officers, members of the armed forces and other public officials, although during the same period only four custodial sentences were handed down for acts of torture, and none of those sentences was longer than 5 years. The Committee also expresses its concern about the considerable budgetary constraints facing the Office of the Special Prosecutor for Human Rights. The Committee appreciates the explanations provided by the delegation about the amendments to article 13 of the Military Police Act, but it still has misgivings about the fact that the competence to investigate complaints concerning the actions of the military police lies with the Prosecution Unit Attached to the Military Police and not the Office of the Special Prosecutor for Human Rights. Lastly, the Committee notes with concern the shortcomings in the victim and witness protection programme as described by the State party in its periodic report (arts. 2, 12, 13 and 16). 32. The State party should: (a) Ensure that all complaints of torture or ill-treatment are promptly investigated in an impartial manner by an independent body, that there is no institutional or hierarchical relationship between that body’s investigators and suspected perpetrators of such acts and that the suspected perpetrators are duly tried and, if found guilty, are punished in a manner that is commensurate with the gravity of their acts; (b) Ensure that the Office of the Special Prosecutor for Human Rights has the necessary resources to carry out its duties; (c) Ensure that the authorities undertake investigations on their own initiative whenever there are reasonable grounds to believe that an act of torture or ill-treatment has been committed; (d) Ensure that, in practice, complainants and witnesses are protected from reprisals and acts of intimidation stemming from their complaint or testimony. Excessive use of force 33. While the Committee appreciates the information provided by the State party on the preparation of a draft bill on the use of force, it is concerned by reports that point to an increase in the number of complaints of excessive use of force by members of the armed forces and the National Police. The Committee regrets that it has no data on the corresponding investigations (arts. 2, 11 and 16). 34. The State party should: (a) Ensure that prompt, impartial and effective investigations are undertaken into all allegations relating to the excessive use of force by law enforcement officials and soldiers and ensure that the perpetrators are prosecuted and the victims adequately compensated; (b) Increase its efforts to systematically provide training to all law enforcement officials on the use of force, especially in the context of demonstrations, taking due account of the Basic Principles on the Use of Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials. GE.16-14849 7