A/HRC/4/33/Add.3 page 18 55. Typically, for a victim to bring charges of torture against a security officer, his or her lawyer must file a claim with the public prosecutor who then transfers the file to the Public Security Director’s special prosecutor, a security officer with legal training, appointed by the Public Security Director. The Director also appoints the panel of officers that comprises the special police court, which decides on cases of abuses by officers. Moreover, the Director is empowered to annul the decisions of the special police court. In such a system, the presumption weighs heavily against transparency, independence and impartiality. 56. Evidence in support of impartial scrutiny by these institutions would include the existence of functioning complaints mechanisms for reporting allegations of torture, a record of investigations into the allegations, and examples of successful prosecutions of security officers. From the heads of all the detention facilities - criminal investigation, pretrial, prison, and intelligence - he visited, the Special Rapporteur heard a chorus of denials of any knowledge of torture allegations received from criminal suspects or detainees. These denials were surprising, despite the officials being confronted with clear and credible allegations of torture by security officials, which were substantiated by forensic medical evidence. 57. The Special Rapporteur reports that no ex officio investigations are undertaken even in the face of serious injuries sustained by a criminal suspect; not one official could demonstrate to the Special Rapporteur serious steps taken to investigate allegations, including at the very least the prompt and timely medical documentation of injuries sustained by detainees.16 Given that throughout the world, the use of torture to extract confessions almost invariably takes place within the initial period following arrest and prior to being transferred to pretrial detention, a striking illustration of the indifference to the situation of criminal suspects was the response by the director of the Juweidah Correction and Rehabilitation Centre (the country’s principal pretrial detention facility) that investigating such allegations was not his responsibility. 58. While categorical in maintaining that torture does not exist, security officials routinely cited to the Special Rapporteur examples of disciplinary sanctions as evidence against impunity for those isolated acts of ill-treatment not amounting to torture. Examples of sanctions included loss of salary imposed on officers, or dismissals from service. The Special Rapporteur emphasizes that administrative sanctions on their own are insufficient to prevent and deter acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 59. No official has ever been prosecuted for torture under article 208 of the Penal Code.17 A stark example of impunity for torture under article 208 of the Penal Code is illustrated by the 16 Recourse to forensic medical expertise at the State-run National Institute of Forensic Medicine is made only upon the request of the prosecutor; victims of torture cannot privately approach the institute for an independent examination. Moreover, the process of securing an examination is fraught with significant delays, which has obvious implications for documenting injuries. 17 The Government cited data from the Public Security Department that complaints against the police which the Police Prosecution Department or police courts dealt with were investigated in a completely impartial and objective manner. For offences of wounding and ill-treatment committed by general security officers in 2005-2006, there were 14 convictions, and