the circumstances of receiving the injury. In contrast, there are cases when a doctor does not establish the correspondence between the injury received and the circumstances of receiving the injury even when the circumstances of receiving the injury are fully described.233 Out of 351 cases documented under the Istanbul Protocol and examined by the Special Preventive Group, photos were taken in 56 cases. The Special Preventive Group examined 40 photos. The quality of 36 of them was unsatisfactory, while in 4 cases the quality was satisfactory. In many cases, the light is not regulated or the object is not in focus. In several cases, photos were taken with a cell phone. It should also be noted that the isolators monitored by the Special Preventive Group did not have a uniform rule for keeping photos taken in accordance with the Istanbul Protocol.234 Audio and video recording - Citizens/detainees’ first contact with the law enforcement agency may begin with communication with a patrol/inspector-police officer. For years, the Public Defender has been urging the Ministry of Internal Affairs to define, in a subordinate normative act, the obligation of the police to videotape their communication with citizens, as well as the rules and terms of keeping the recorded video footage. According to legislation, the patrol inspectors shall upload the footage obtained through their body cameras attached to their uniform to a special server, where the data shall be kept for 30 days.235 As for their obligation to record (audio and video) their communication with citizens, the above depends on the discretion of the patrol inspector. It should also be noted that apart from patrol inspectors, officers of the Central Criminal Police Department and territorial bodies also have communication with citizens due to their official functions. Consequently, apart from the fact that they do not have the obligation to videotape their communication with citizens and that the above depends on their personal opinion, the rules and terms for keeping the video footage recorded by them are not defined either. The results of the monitoring carried out by the Special Preventive Group show that the body cameras are barely used in practice.236 According to lawyers, cameras are not used properly and sometimes short recordings showing only part of the communication between the police and citizens (which do not show the whole picture and are biased towards police officers) are attached to the case as evidence.237 233 Circumstances of the injuries were not fully described or were not described at all in 177 out of 275 cases, however, the doctor established consistence. In 6 cases, the circumstances were thoroughly described, however the doctor did not establish consistence. 234 Most of the photos were kept in a folder on the computer desktop. Many photo documents did not have a name, surname or date. There were also cases when doctors could not find photos. 235 Order No. 1310 of the Minister of Internal Affairs of December 15, 2005 on the approval of the instruction on the rules of patrolling by the Patrol Police Service of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia, Article 12 1. 236 During interviews with the Special Preventive Group, only 2 out of 38 detainees said that a body camera was used during arrest. 237 Results of the interviews with lawyers working in the regions. 65.4% of the lawyers interviewed online say that if there were body camera recordings as evidence, it would have a high impact on the case. 86