A/HRC/34/54/Add.1 89. If a complaint is brought before an investigative judge or through a prison director, it should be transmitted immediately to the office of the prosecutor, which is obliged to investigate. A medical examination of the wounds can be requested by the complainant, the investigative judge or the prosecutor proprio motu. Medical staff in a detention centre who come to know of any torture or ill-treatment of inmates are expected to report such treatment and the dossier is then handed over to the prosecutor for further investigation. 90. In practice, however, complaints are rare and it is very difficult for detainees to make them despite the existence of legal safeguards. Victims rarely have effective access to lawyers and prosecutors and investigative judges who have a duty to regularly visit places of detention and receive complaints from inmates do so only sporadically in reality. Complaints from within the detention centres addressed to the prison director do not always reach him or her or the prosecutor, as detainees are more in contact with the national guard than they are with representatives of the Ministry of Justice. 91. Throughout his visit, the Special Rapporteur heard of a troubling lack of complaints being brought forward, even to institutions specifically mandated to assist in such cases, such as the National Bar Association and the National Human Rights Commission, both of which informed the Special Rapporteur that they had never received a complaint of torture. 4. Lack of effective investigations into allegations of torture 92. During his visit, the Special Rapporteur discerned a concerning lack of will within the entire judiciary to investigate and prosecute persons suspected of committing torture and ill-treatment. He was informed repeatedly by various interlocutors that there were no allegations or complaints of torture or ill-treatment and, consequently, no investigations. Yet, as stipulated in article 9 of the 2015 anti-torture law, an investigation should be initiatiated whenever there are reasonable grounds to believe that torture or ill-treatment has been committed or attempted, or whenever a confession has been obtained through such means, even in the absence of a complaint. 93. The Special Rapporteur was informed of only one case involving allegations of torture that led to a conviction: in that case (No. 1272/2012), the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a prison guard from the national guard and sentenced him to two years of imprisonment for the death by torture of an inmate, Hassan Ould Brahim, in the Dar-Naim prison in Nouakchott in 2012. The convictions of the other eight guards in the case were reversed by the Court of Appeals in Nouakchott. Disciplinary measures were also imposed on the perpetrators, at least one of whom was dismissed from the national guard.18 As the new anti-torture law was not yet in place at the time, the perpetrators were prosecuted for torture leading to manslaughter (with intent). Neither the Court of Appeals in Nouakchott nor the Supreme Court have considered any cases of torture since 2013. 94. The Special Rapporteur was informed of another isolated case involving a police officer who was disciplined for mistreating minors in detention.19 95. The Special Rapporteur welcomes these cases but concludes that the failure to bring any significant number of cases against State officials accused of torture before the courts or to impose genuine disciplinary measures against perpetrators strongly indicates that the judiciary lacks the will to investigate and prosecute allegations of torture and ill-treatment, thereby contributing to an atmosphere of impunity. This is not so much a question of 18 19 16 Information received from the Ministry of the Interior and Decentralization. The officer was placed in confinement for 15 days and transferred before the disciplinary council, according to information received from the national police.