On the basis of his mandate as the Mechanism, the Ombudsman evaluates complaints and may decide to either investigate them himself, refer the incident to the competent disciplinary body and oversee the investigation, or inform the state prosecutors, if there are indications of criminal liability. Moreover, the Mechanism follows up on the implementation of relevant judgments by the European Court of Human Rights, and may order the re-opening of investigations pursuant to the finding of a violation of article 3 ECHR. The Mechanism examines a large number of cases within its mandate (321 cases in 2017-18, 208 cases in 2019, 263 cases in 2020) and has reverted approximately half of these to the competent disciplinary bodies for supplementary evidence, corrections, re-evaluation of evidence, reasoning or outcome, and lack of compliance with substantive or procedural rules. Nevertheless, a number of barriers related to the scope of its mandate and the resources available to it render the Mechanism largely ineffective. The Mechanism does not have the power to compel action by the police but can only make recommendations, which are oftentimes ignored. In addition, it lacks the necessary capacity to properly oversee the disciplinary proceedings or to investigate cases on its own, as the posts envisaged in the law establishing it were never filled and its work is carried out by the Ombudsman’s nonspecialised personnel. In November 2019, the Minister for Citizen Protection, pressed by the outcry caused by a surge in public displays of police brutality – often filmed by citizens - established an independent “unofficial” Committee, tasked with observing the implementation of the Mechanism’s recommendations by the police. The Committee submitted a report to the Greek Parliament, confirming:  The culture of impunity for law enforcement officers involved in incidents of violence and illtreatment;  The unwillingness of the police to collaborate with the Mechanism, as evidenced by the constant delays in delivering requested documents and information;  Deficiencies in the exercise of investigative duties by the police, such as neglecting to take depositions from material witnesses, including the doctors who were charged with the care of the victims, or to ask key questions;  The existence of bias in the investigations performed by the disciplinary bodies, demonstrated by the fact that “strikingly similar” statements made by the police officers involved in the incidents were accepted without question and awarded much greater weight than the statements made by citizens usually are; and, finally,  The incomplete or faulty reasoning of disciplinary decisions, in particular in relation to the investigation of potential racist motives. The report concluded on a number of recommendations to the Minister, including the establishment of the Committee as a permanent, independent body, and the reinforcement of the National Mechanism. However, the Committee was disbanded shortly after the submission of its report. Conclusions The above points paint a clear albeit grim picture on the use of torture and ill-treatment by the Greek police. The systematic resort to these methods during the initial stages of the criminal investigation, to coerce confessions, obtain information or plainly intimidate – often vulnerable – suspects, accused persons or witnesses, combined with the apparent absence of examples of cases dismissed by the Greek courts on these grounds, leads to the inevitable conclusion that evidence obtained through torture often seeps through the cracks of the Greek criminal justice system and is potentially used to convict persons accused of crimes. 36