E/CN.4/1999/61/Add.1 page 13 confessions made during detention as a result of torture were disregarded by the prosecutors of the State Security Courts. The alleged victims also claimed that the prosecutors would not seriously investigate their allegations of torture. The case of lawyer Ahmet Fazil Tamer is particularly instructive in this regard, given the seriousness of his injuries. Mr. Tamer testified to the delegation that he was detained on 19 April 1994 in Istanbul on charges of belonging to an illegal organization. He was held for 14 days at the Gayrettepe Security Directorate, during which period he claims to have been subjected to severe torture, including “Palestinian” suspension. As a result of the suspension, he claims to have suffered temporary paralysis in both arms and could not use his hands for four months following the torture. Recent tests, four and a half years after his detention, demonstrate that his left arm is still weak and he has no feeling in his left hand. The initial medical certificate issued by the forensic doctor at the State Security Court merely stated that he could not work for four days, but the prison doctor later certified that he could not work for 15 days as a result of his injuries. Mr. Tamer claims that when he was brought before the prosecutor of the State Security Court, the prosecutor wrote on the document containing the allegations of torture that Mr. Tamer could not use his arms, and thus, he could not sign his name. Therefore, his fingerprint was used in lieu of his signature. Despite this compelling evidence, Mr. Tamer was remanded to prison based upon, inter alia, his confession. He remains in prison pending trial. To his knowledge, there has been no meaningful investigation into his allegations of torture, and certainly no police officer has been charged under articles 243 or 245 of the Penal Code. 45. Another indication that the prosecutors in the State Security Courts do not take allegations of torture seriously is the paucity of cases they refer to the public prosecutors. Virtually all the prosecutors in the State Security Courts whom the Special Rapporteur met admitted that they referred relatively few of these allegations to the public prosecutors. Indeed, they were unable to provide any statistical data on the number of cases that they had referred to the public prosecutors. A uniform response that the Special Rapporteur received as explanation for the small number of referrals was that the terrorists were instructed to allege torture in order to discredit the police and the entire justice system. 46. Despite a significant reduction in its length, the detention period for detainees falling within the jurisdiction of the State Security Courts remains problematic. Detainees charged with ordinary crimes may have access to a lawyer at any time after they are taken into custody. However, for crimes falling under the scope of the State Security Courts, the detainee may meet his or her lawyer only upon extension of the custody period by order of the judge, in other words, after four days. Further, according to lawyers involved in such cases, this meeting is in the presence of the police. Moreover, the lawyer does not have access to the case file when the decision to remand is taken. The lawyer only has access to it after the prosecutor has handed down an indictment, which normally takes one to two months. 47. The Special Rapporteur was also concerned by the fact that many government officials, particularly those at the highest levels, including senior police officers, did not know the custody periods established under the new Regulation. Virtually all of them spoke of a four-day detention period