E/CN.4/1999/61/Add.1 page 23 finalization of the present report, the Special Rapporteur learned that the five remanded police officers had been released. The court board stated that it had taken that decision taking into consideration the period the defendants had served in prison, and the fact that most of the necessary evidence for trial had already been gathered and that it was impossible for the defendants to tamper with this evidence. The court board did ban the police officers from travelling abroad. 81. One pitfall in any effort to prosecute a State agent is found in the Law on the Prosecution of Civil Servants, which dates back to 1913, during the Ottoman period, and is intended to afford some degree of immunity for civil servants acting in their official capacities. In cases that fall within the scope of this law, an administrative board made up of civil servants, who generally have no legal training, conducts an investigation to determine whether the civil servant should be prosecuted or simply disciplined by his or her superiors. In the event that the administrative board determines that prosecution is warranted, it forwards the case to the appropriate court, along with its recommendation as to the crime of which the civil servant should be accused. The prosecutor then initiates his or her own investigation. 82. The effect of the law in this context is to frustrate and delay the prosecution of official misconduct. The jurisdiction of this administrative board is made more confusing by the fact that while members of the security forces are classified as civil servants, they are covered by the law only when acting within the scope of their ordinary law enforcement duties, that is, in their administrative capacity. For example, if members of the jandarma transferring a detainee are accused of torturing the individual, a complaint would first be referred to the administrative board because this activity falls within the scope of their ordinary law enforcement duties. However, if such officers are involved in the apprehension of a suspect on orders from the public prosecutor, they are acting in a judicial rather than an administrative capacity, and thus, any complaint would be handled directly by the prosecutor. 83. A good example of the jurisdictional hurdles created by the Law on the Prosecution of Civil Servants is seen in the case involving the killing of 10 prisoners in Diyarbakir Prison on 24 September 1996, when special team members, jandarma and prison warders put down a prison riot. During the operation, 10 prisoners were beaten to death and at least 46 were wounded, most of them by blows on the head. It was reported that there were skull fractures in all of the dead prisoners due to blows by truncheons, rifle butts and clubs, and that traces of heavy blows were observable all over their bodies. The autopsy reports concluded that the 10 prisoners had died as a result of torture. Cases are currently pending against 29 jandarma and 36 police officers for the use of excessive force and manslaughter. However, the prosecutor dismissed the counts against 30 or so prison guards based on limited questioning of the wounded prisoners, who were asked only who had injured them and not whether they had seen others harmed. Since most were unable to identify the perpetrators who had attacked them, charges could not be brought. 84. The prosecutor decided to bring cases against the 65 police and jandarma, but he also determined that they had been carrying out administrative functions rather than a judicial function, despite the fact