E/CN.4/1999/61/Add.1 page 25 88. One difficulty facing prosecutors is the fact that they must rely heavily on the police to conduct the preliminary investigation of crimes. On the one hand, there is a natural reluctance on the part of prosecutors to alienate police officers, whom they view as partners. On the other hand, there is an obvious conflict of interest when the police are investigating crimes committed by colleagues. At least one prosecutor informed the Special Rapporteur that there is a need to create a judicial police force if the prosecutors are to control police abuse. 89. Prosecutors also face evidentiary problems. Since the testimony of the victim is not on its own sufficient evidence to support a conviction, the prosecution must put forward physical proof. In many cases, there is a lack of such physical evidence. In most cases this is due to the inadequacy of the medical examinations (see chap. II above). Also, not all forms of torture or ill-treatment leave physical signs. In other cases, since detainees are frequently blindfolded when tortured, they are unable to identify the perpetrators. Even if the victim is able to identify the perpetrator, defendants are not required to be present in court for the purpose of identification. To obstruct the prosecution further, defendants in some cases have been transferred to other towns, where they continue to perform their duties. Such a transfer obviously makes it difficult for prosecutors to take the testimony of the defendant. 90. The widely reported Manisa case in which 16 teenagers were arrested on charges of being members of an illegal organization and detained in December 1995 by the Anti-Terror Department of the Manisa Security Directorate demonstrates the extreme difficulties encountered in prosecuting police or security officials who have committed an act of torture. Following their detention, brief family visits enabled the detainees to inform their families of their claims that they had been tortured. The families immediately filed a complaint with the public prosecutor and the students were sent for a medical examination at the request of the families. At this examination, the students claim that police officers stood next to them and the doctors did not conduct a physical examination, nor did they ask them any questions about their physical complaints or trauma they might have suffered. The medical certificates issued included no explicit confirmation that torture had taken place. 91. The families then tried to arrange an independent medical examination and the Izmir Medical Chamber requested permission to examine the students, but was denied access to them. However, based on the official medical reports, questionnaires that it used to record the students' accounts of torture and their physical complaints, and hospital records, the Medical Chamber concluded that the students had been subjected to a range of torture techniques. 92. Despite this report, the prosecutor refused to open a case against the police. Subsequent medical examinations conducted following the students' release from detention revealed deformation in their ears from cold water spray, injuries from the squeezing of the boys' testicles, tuberculosis and that they suffered chronic pain from electrical shocks to their genitals. Once again, despite this medical evidence, the prosecutor refused to open a case. Finally, after intense media coverage and pressure from a Member of