CAT/C/LKA/CO/5 (d) Doctors are able to report any signs of torture or ill-treatment to an independent investigative authority in confidence and without risk of reprisals. Forced confessions 31. Recalling its previous recommendation (see CAT/C/LKA/CO/3-4, para. 11), the Committee remains concerned that, under the Protection against Terrorism Act, confessions obtained by officials at or above the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police are still admissible as sole evidence in court, even if they were taken without the presence of a lawyer and are later retracted by the accused on the grounds of coercion. The Committee is concerned that, even after the so-called voire dire or admissibility inquiries take place, the judge enjoys final discretion whether to admit evidence and, for persons detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, the burden of proof remains on those persons to prove that their confessions were made under duress. The Committee is alarmed by information that the same rule has been carried over in the proposed draft framework that will replace the Act. It is also seriously concerned at information that 90 per cent of convictions are based on a confession alone or as the main evidence and that, in numerous documented cases of torture, the accused persons alleged that they were forced to sign blank sheets of paper or self-incriminatory statements written in a language they did not understand (arts. 2, 12 and 15). 32. The State party should make the necessary legislative amendments to ensure that national legislation, and any legislative proposals to replace the security legal framework, strictly guarantees that coerced confessions are inadmissible in practice as evidence in court, including in cases concerning State security. In this respect, the Committee calls on the State party to: (a) Ensure that, where there is an allegation that a statement was made under torture, the burden of proof effectively remains on the prosecuting authority, without exception. A forensic medical examination should immediately be ordered and the necessary steps taken to ensure that the allegations are promptly and properly investigated; (b) Enforce the Evidence Ordinance of Sri Lanka in all criminal cases, including in terrorism-related offences, and ensure that extrajudicial confessions that are recanted by defendants when they appear before a magistrate on the ground of having been coerced are effectively excluded from the proceedings, especially when the medical examination sustains the claim; (c) Enshrine in national legislation the right of the accused to have access to an interpreter from the outset of the deprivation of liberty and throughout the proceedings; (d) Adopt the measures required to permit proceedings to be reopened on the ground that they were held on the basis of confessions extracted under torture. Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka 33. While expressing appreciation for the appointment of the new commissioners in October 2015 by the Constitutional Council, following the adoption of the nineteenth amendment to the Constitution (see paragraph 5 (c)), the Committee is concerned that the Commission has not always been able to visit police stations or prisons immediately after receiving an allegation of violation of a detainee’s rights, owing to various administrative and logistical factors. While also expressing appreciation for the confidential complaint mechanism set up by the Commission, the Committee regrets that such complaints do not necessarily result in a criminal investigation, as indicated above. It also regrets that the Commission’s recommendations, particularly those related to the compliance of new laws 10