E/CN.4/1999/61/Add.1 page 30 many police and prosecutorial authorities maintain as accounting for most allegations of torture and ill-treatment - much more difficult to sustain. 110. The few final convictions of the less than numerous law enforcement agents prosecuted for torture or ill-treatment and the relatively short sentences involved have had some impact on the climate of impunity enjoyed by law enforcement officials, but not sufficient to dispel it altogether. The fact that many of the agents who are prosecuted remain in service during the protracted proceedings can only be interpreted by them, their colleagues and the public at large as evidence of substantial institutional support. Indeed, the inability of jandarma commanders and police chiefs to point to internal disciplinary checks on misbehaviour of law enforcement officials, as opposed to external checks by Ministry of Interior officials and prosecutors, indicates a troubling gap in organizational authority. 111. The strengthening of medical checks of detainees on arrival in and departure from police custody, as well as arrival in remand prisons, have certainly had an impact on the nature and quality of allegations of torture and ill-treatment. Nevertheless, much remains to be done to ensure that the medical personnel involved are sufficiently qualified and independent, that they and the detainees brought to them are free from intimidation, that their certificates are not tampered with or destroyed and that the evidence of independent, often more qualified, doctors is given appropriate weight by prosecutors and judges. 112. As appears from the above, the mission concentrated on torture in its classical context, that is, torture inflicted in custody for the primary purpose of investigation. It did not focus on prison conditions and problems of ill-treatment by prison personnel, or on other issues potentially related to the mandate, such as the problem of virginity tests in rape cases (see concluding comment of CEDAW (A/52/38/Rev.1, para. 178)). This does not mean that no concerns on such matters had been brought to the attention of the Special Rapporteur; rather, he felt that, given the limited time available for the mission, he had to give priority to the problem that has in the past constituted and continues to constitute the area in respect of which most allegations were received. 113. In the light of the above conclusions, the Special Rapporteur has formulated a number of recommendations, many of which were urged on him by interlocutors, including some at the official level; indeed, several are already in the process of discussion and debate in governmental and legislative bodies, often inspired by the dynamic work of the Human Rights Coordinating High Committee, chaired by the Minister of State in Charge of Human Rights, Professor Dr. Sami Türk. The recommendations are: (a) The legislation should be amended to ensure that no one is held without prompt access to a lawyer of his or her choice as required under the law applicable to ordinary crimes or, when compelling reasons dictate, access to another independent lawyer. (b) The legislation should be amended to ensure that any extensions of police custody are ordered by a judge, before whom the detainee should be brought in person; such extensions should not exceed a total of four days from