E/CN.4/1999/61/Add.1 page 24 that the police had been sent in by the prosecutor and the crimes had been committed in a detention centre under his purview. Thus, the cases were referred to the administrative body. The administrative body, however, found that they had been performing a judicial function because the forces had been called in by the prosecutor. The prosecutor was therefore compelled to proceed with the case in the Heavy Penal Court in Diyarbakir, but the court then declined to hear the case on the grounds that it was an administrative case and therefore within the jurisdiction of the administrative board. As a result, the penal chamber of the Court of Cassation had to resolve the dispute; it determined that the case was not administrative and referred it back to the Heavy Penal Court in Diyarbakir. The first hearing in the case was held only in June 1997, nine months after the killings took place, and the case is still pending. It is important to note that none of the defendants are on remand. Further, the police who sometimes bring the eyewitnesses to the court are the very defendants themselves, which many lawyers report is a common practice to intimidate eyewitnesses. 85. The Minister of State in charge of Human Rights informed the Special Rapporteur that there is a proposal to amend the law, the primary purpose being to accelerate the process. Under article 7 of this proposed amendment, the administrative body would be required to give its decision as to whether the case should be formally investigated by the public prosecutor within 30 days from the date of the alleged crime. This 30-day period, may, if necessary, be extended once only for a period not longer than 15 days. If no decision is given by this time, authorization to investigate will be considered to have been given. While this amendment will address the problem of the current delays under the procedure, the Special Rapporteur believes that it fails to address the more problematic issue of whether a body composed of civil servants who lack legal training is the appropriate body to determine whether allegations of wrongdoing by other civil servants should be prosecuted. 86. Another jurisdictional problem is due to the fact that the investigation of torture alleged by a detainee falling within the jurisdiction of a State Security Court is conducted by the public prosecutor of the respective Heavy Penal Court. As a result, the trial of a detainee may proceed in the State Security Court system on the basis of an allegedly coerced testimony and a sentence of guilt may be handed down before a decision is taken in the Heavy Penal Court concerning the alleged torture. This in fact occurs quite frequently. For example, in the trial in the infamous Manisa case, in which students were tortured by police officers, the Izmir State Security Court relied on the students' torture-induced confessions to convict them prior to the trial of the perpetrators in the Heavy Penal Court. 87. The Turkish Code of Criminal Procedure requires a prosecutor to initiate an investigation to determine whether there are grounds for prosecution when he or she has received a complaint of torture or other information indicating that a crime may have occurred (art. 153). If the investigation supports the allegations of torture, the prosecutor is supposed to charge those responsible (art. 163). However, human rights organizations and defence lawyers contend that there is an unwillingness on the part of prosecutors to prosecute.