The Prosecutor General’s Office, through dedicated units of prosecutors, is tasked with leading investigations into cases opened under Article 1431, but even in these cases investigative activities are often conducted by police. When a complaint is lodged with the Prosecutor General’s Office against the decision of a local prosecutor’s office not to open a criminal case into allegations of torture/illtreatment or to suspend the investigation, the Prosecutor General’s Office often refers the case back to the same local prosecutor’s office if it considers that the case needs further checking. In this way cases can be bounced back and forth between prosecutors’ offices for months or even years. On 7 September 2019, the Prosecutor General adopted an “Instruction on Methods for Prosecutorial Supervision of the Legality of Prevention, Detection and Investigation of Torture”, containing key principles outlined in the Convention against Torture and the Istanbul Protocol. It sets out a detailed mechanism for the investigation of allegations of torture and establishes a step-by-step procedure for the medical examination of victims based on the standards of the Istanbul Protocol. The Instruction is a binding document for employees of prosecutors’ offices. The inadmissibility of evidence obtained by torture: Article 15 of the Convention against Torture states that “Each State Party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made”. This obligation is absolute and there are no exceptions to it. In line with the May 2016 amendments to the CPC, evidence is considered inadmissible if it is obtained by way of torture, ill-treatment, violence, threats, deception or other unlawful activities (Article 88-1, “inadmissible evidence”). Questions of inadmissibility of evidence and limitations on their use in the criminal procedure are decided by the police inquirer, the investigator, the prosecutor, the court, the judge, either on their own initiative or following a petition by the parties. Evidence of torture or illtreatment of a suspect, accused or defendant have to be checked and evaluated regarding the admissibility of their statements as evidence, no matter whether a complaint or a petition have been filed by the victim or the lawyer. The inquirer, investigator, prosecutor, court or judge who decide about the question of admissibility are obliged to clarify in each case which specific violation took place and issue a decision with a justification. When evidence is ruled to be inadmissible due to torture or ill-treatment, the police inquirer, investigator, prosecutor, court or judge take measures within their respective remits pertaining to the responsibility of those individuals who allowed the abuse. All evidence ruled to be inadmissible is considered invalid. However, there is no reliable enforcement mechanism in place to guarantee the implementation of this legislation in practice. Often, judges dismiss torture allegations by defendants or close the inquiry following an interview with the alleged perpetrators. Or, when lawyers petition during the trial that Article 88-1 be applied, judges often delay their decision until the verdict is pronounced, which violates Article 175 of the CPC (“obligatory consideration of petitions”). To date, there are no statistics on the number of criminal cases in which the provisions of article 88, paragraph 1, of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been applied in cases involving the use of torture. This is due, inter alia, to the fact that there is no separate section in the system of judicial statistics on the application of the law by the courts. The Coalition against Torture and Impunity was also unaware of any case in which article 88-1 had been used in practice in cases of torture. For example, an analysis of complaints received by the Coalition against Torture and Impunity between 2015 and 2019 (a total of 97 complaints were analysed) shows that in 68 cases during the trial, lawyers and/or victims of torture have alleged torture during detention and criminal investigations. In 7 cases, the court ordered the Prosecutor’s Office to verify the allegations of torture, in 8 cases the court examined the allegations of torture, and in the remaining cases the court did not respond to the 51