CAT/C/TUN/CO/3 and who have been trained in the use of the Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the Istanbul Protocol); (b) The medical file is made available to the detainee or the detainee’s counsel on request; (c) All examinations are performed out of earshot and sight of police officers and prison staff; (d) The doctor is able to report any signs of torture or ill-treatment to an independent investigative authority in confidence and without risk of reprisals. Allegations of torture and ill-treatment 15. While taking note of the numerous measures taken by the State party to prevent torture, the Committee remains concerned about consistent reports that torture and illtreatment continue to be practised in the security sector. Torture is practised particularly by officers of the police and National Guard when holding a person in custody, and especially against terrorism suspects. Although the police are under the authority of the public prosecutor during investigations, the Committee regrets that the public prosecutor is not practically involved in monitoring interrogation, but rather exercises judicial oversight of the measures taken by the police. The Committee is also concerned about reports that the Ministry of the Interior has sometimes misinterpreted the counter-terrorism law by refusing to reveal the identity of officers suspected of torture to the judge in charge of the investigation (arts. 1, 2, 4, 11-13, 15 and 16). 16. The Committee urges the State party to: (a) Ensure that public prosecutors properly monitor the measures taken by the officers of the security services in charge of investigations; (b) Install video surveillance equipment in all interrogation centres and places of custody, including the centres in Gorjani, El Aouina and Bouchocha, except where doing so might give rise to violations of detainees’ right to privacy or the confidentiality of their conversations with their counsel or doctor. The State party should also ensure supervision of the use of such recordings during trials; (c) Unambiguously reaffirm the absolute prohibition of torture and publicly warn that anyone committing such acts or otherwise complicit or acquiescent in torture will be held personally responsible before the law for such acts; (d) Ensure that article 67 of the new counter-terrorism law (Act No. 2015-26) is not misinterpreted with the aim of guaranteeing impunity for officers of the security services suspected of committing acts of torture or ill-treatment; (e) Pursue efforts to reorganize and reform the security services so that they are in conformity with the standards of a State based on the rule of law and of the Convention. Independence of the judiciary 17. While welcoming the constitutional, legislative and institutional measures that reinforce the independence of the judiciary (see para. 5 (a) and (b) above), the Committee takes note with concern of reports that the judiciary is still subject to considerable influence of the executive branch and that investigating judges do not always transmit detainees’ allegations of torture during custody to the State prosecutor, as required by law, and that they do not order medical examinations at the request of detainees or the detainees’ counsel (arts. 2, 12, 13 and 16). 4 GE.16-09569