A/HRC/4/33/Add.3 page 19 case of Zaher Abed Al-Jalil Abu Al-Reesh (see appendix, paragraph 46), where the Special Rapporteur established beyond any reasonable doubt a serious case of torture which had happened during the week of his fact-finding mission, and for which the evidence was corroborated by witness testimony, his own forensic doctor, and by two forensic doctors from the National Institute of Forensic Medicine. Concerning investigations and prosecutions into these allegations, the Government responded, by letter dated 10 October 2006, “that when questioned, [Zaher Abed Al-Jalil Abu Al-Reesh] asked for no charges to be brought against the two culprits. The commission of inquiry decided to refer the two culprits to the police court to be tried for: conspiracy to wound, in violation of article 334 of the Penal Code and pursuant to article 76 of the same Code; and disobeying orders and instructions, in violation of article 37, paragraph 4, of the Public Security Act”. According to the Penal Code, article 334 carries a maximum penalty of one year imprisonment and a fine of 25 Jordanian dinars, and article 37 (4) of the Public Security Law, concerning disciplinary sanctions, carries a maximum of two months’ imprisonment, loss of two months salary, and a lowering of his rank. 60. Paradoxically, while law enforcement officials maintain that torture allegations are unheard of within their institutions, the Court of Cassation has overturned a number of convictions on the grounds that security officials had obtained confessions from defendants under torture.18 Regrettably even these findings do not spur any official investigations into wrongdoings by officials and none of the security officials involved in these cases have ever been brought to justice. 61. What is more, the decisions and rulings of the Court of Cassation related to cases where criminal suspects are prosecuted under special courts are at the same time cited by government officials to defend the system, pointing to the existence of independent oversight in the form of appeals of special court decisions to the Court. 14 complaints were dismissed. From 1 January to 21 June 2006, there were three convictions, two complaints were dismissed and three complaints remain under investigation. Despite requests no information was provided in relation to the nature of the allegations, the decisions of the convictions and dismissal, and the nature of the sentences handed down. 18 See for example, Court of Cassation Decision No. 450/2004 of 17 March 2004: “If the court concludes that a confession which an accused person gave to the police was obtained in circumstances that cast doubt on its validity and as the result of beating and physical torture, the court is entitled to disregard the confession”; and Decision No. 1513/2003 of 4 May 2006: “Statements obtained as a result of violence and coercion cannot be relied upon to convict a defendant.” Examples of Court of Cassation rulings invalidating special court judgements: Ruling No. 271/91 of 1 October 1992; Ruling No. 327/94 of 22 August 1994; Ruling No. 746/98 of 20 January 1998; Ruling No. 51/98 of 23 March 1998, which states that if irrefutable evidence is found that the appellant’s statements were obtained under duress and torture and without his consent, then the statements must be struck from the record, because they are null and void; Ruling No. 256/98 of 19 May 1998; Ruling No. 552/99 of 23 August 1999; and Ruling No. 820/2003 of 22 November 2003.