Conclusion In the same decision, the Committee considers that, notwithstanding the evidentiary benefits to victims afforded by a criminal investigation, a civil proceeding and the victim’s claim for reparation should not be dependent on the conclusion of a criminal proceeding. It considers that compensation should not be delayed until criminal liability has been established. A civil proceeding should be available independently of the criminal proceeding and necessary legislation and institutions for such civil procedures should be in place. If criminal proceedings are required by domestic legislation to take place before civil compensation can be sought, then the absence or undue delay of those criminal proceedings constitutes a failure on behalf of the State party to fulfill its obligations under the Convention.10 Full information on redress and rehabilitation is very important to determine whether there has been compliance with Convention obligations. For instance, after consideration of the fourth periodic report of Belarus, the Committee concluded that “the State party should provide redress and compensation, including rehabilitation to victims in practice, and provide information on such cases to the Committee. Furthermore, the State party should provide information on redress and compensation measures ordered by the courts and provided to victims of torture or their families. This information should include the number of requests made and those granted, and the amounts ordered and actually provided in each case.”13 Repetition of legal texts will not satisfy the Committee; what happens in practice is critical. To that end, State Parties should provide relevant statistical data to the Committee. The standard of proof for a domestic criminal prosecution is higher than for civil liability. In the Anglo-Saxon tradition, a criminal prosecution requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, while civil liability requires a preponderance of the evidence. Torture does not take place in the presence of a public notary with witnesses; thus, if the required standard is reasonable doubt, it is impossible to prove state responsibility. In cases of gross and mass violations of human rights, presumptions are acceptable to prove an individual case of torture. In such a case, the burden of proof shifts to the state and the state can disprove the presumption by showing that torture did not take place. Training on Convention obligations is an obvious need and the Istanbul Protocol is an invaluable training tool, which is recognized in General Comment No. 3. The Istanbul Protocol provides guidance for medical doctors and lawyers in sensitive matters including, inter alia, how to question a victim of torture and interact with those involved, how to record facts, and how to meet the psychological needs of victims.14 The Istanbul Protocol also functions in a preventative role by educating people, inter alia, regarding the importance of the use of cameras, the registration of prisoners, and ensuring access to doctors and to lawyers. All of these measures contribute to the realization of the object and purpose of the Convention and their value is affirmed in General Comment No. 3. Additionally in its decision on Gerasimov v. Kazakhstan, “the Committee emphasizes that disciplinary or administrative remedies without access to effective judicial review cannot be deemed to constitute adequate redress in the context of Article 14.”11 In a case of torture, when an administrative judge or a disciplinary institution simply slaps the perpetrator on the wrist, without ordering punishment, and without providing adequate measures of redress for the victim, they have not satisfied Convention obligations. Adequate domestic procedures, including access to full and effective redress, are necessary and this requirement is clarified by the Committee’s jurisprudence on Article 14.12 Under the law, the prisoner is sacred; certainly a prisoner might be guilty and should be punished in accordance with the law if he or she committed a crime, but the law condemns and rejects torture and ill-treatment of that prisoner. The use of torture and illtreatment sometimes gives a false sense of security and distorts the real possibility of achieving justice. We must ensure that neither innocent people nor guilty people are tortured, and that no one’s rights are violated. General Comment No. 3 contributes a valuable tool to reaffirm and assert these essential principles. Remarks of Octavio Amezcua* Introduction the Inter-American System. Definitely, one of the reasons for this preference is that it is important that the System, particularly the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, has given reparations. Dealing with reparations gives a chance to the UN committees to address human rights violations in a more comprehensive way. The adoption of criteria established in General Comment 315 is a good starting point for the Committee [against Torture] to start exploring reparations measures within its individual complaint procedure. I think it is a very good sign that the Committee against Torture is starting to pay more attention to the issue of reparations. As a human rights lawyer in the Latin American forum, I have witnessed how NGOs have focused litigation in * Octavio Amezcua represented the Mexican Commission for the Defense and Promotion of Human Rights. 20