A/HRC/4/33/Add.3 page 17 received from detainees within only a one-week visit. In addition, it is well-documented that the practice of torture in Jordan has been alleged by various credible NGOs and other sources.13 51. The Special Rapporteur recalls that the practice of torture constitutes one of the most severe violations of human rights and human dignity, and States parties to the Convention against Torture therefore have an obligation to carefully investigate every allegation of torture with the aim of bringing the perpetrators to justice. C. Impunity 52. Notwithstanding the provisions and safeguards laid out in Jordanian law to combat torture described above, in practice they are totally meaningless because the security services are effectively shielded from independent criminal prosecution and accountability. 53. A torture victim in Jordan who seeks redress, especially one who is a criminal suspect still in detention, faces an impenetrable wall of conflicting interests. In simple terms, the person whom a suspect is accusing of committing torture is the same person who is guarding him or her, and the same person who is appointed to investigate and prosecute the allegations of torture being made against him. 54. The Public Security Directorate under the Ministry of the Interior is the authority charged with the investigation of crime and the interrogation of suspects, as well as the administration of detention of suspects throughout all stages of the criminal proceedings (i.e. upon arrest, in pretrial detention, and upon conviction).14 The same authority, through its system of internal special prosecutors and police courts, is also the sole authority tasked with investigating and prosecuting violations committed by its own officials.15 Similarly, according to article 7 of the 1964 General Intelligence Directorate Law, GID officers are tried by an intelligence court comprising of GID officials. The same is true for military personnel who are tried and sentenced by military courts. In other words, it is only the special police, intelligence and military courts and not the ordinary prosecutors and criminal courts which have the competence to bring to justice any security official accused of torture, as defined in article 208 of the Penal Code. 13 Amnesty International, “Middle East and North Africa: Jordan, Report 2006”, and “Your confessions are ready for you to sign”, July 2006; and Human Rights Watch, “Summit should address torture problem”, 7 February 2006, and “Suspicious sweeps: The General Intelligence Department and Jordan’s rule of law problem”, September 2006; and United States Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2005, Jordan. 14 1965 Public Security Law. Note that criminal suspects detained by GID remain in its facility up until the time they have received their final sentence by the State Security Court. Convicted military personnel serve their time in military facilities. 15 The 1965 Public Security Law provides that security officers must be tried by a “police court” where the judges and the prosecutor are security officers themselves.