before an investigating judge within 24 hours after his arrest. However, in certain cases article 196 permits detained persons to be kept in custody for 72 hours before having access to a lawyer and before being brought before an investigating judge. Furthermore, torture is not defined in the Criminal Code of Montenegro, which contains similar provisions to those laid down in articles 65 and 66 of the Serbian Criminal Code. 209. The government officials with whom the Committee members met expressed their commitment to the protection of human rights and explained some of the initiatives the Government of Montenegro was taking in this field, such as the drafting of a law to establish an ombudsman, the measures to improve the functioning of the criminal justice system and the reform of the police. They also expressed their willingness to cooperate with international organizations. The Deputy Minister of the Interior said that hotlines had been established and the telephone numbers regularly published in the daily newspaper so as to enable every citizen to call and complain about abuse of authority by officials. In addition, training programmes on human rights for the police force were being developed. In 2001 his Ministry had received nine complaints of torture, which resulted in disciplinary proceedings and the dismissal of 18 officers. 210 With respect to criminal proceedings, the Public Prosecutor of Montenegro said that although by law prosecutors could initiate proceedings ex officio, this possibility was used only in exceptional circumstances. He also said that his Office was promoting a reform that would allow public prosecutors to supervise and direct investigations conducted by the police. V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE 211. Since the beginning of the inquiry the Committee examined a great deal of information from reliable sources concerning the use of torture in Serbia and Montenegro prior to October 2000. That information was corroborated by testimony received by the three Committee members who visited the country from victims, witnesses and government officials. On the basis of that information the Committee concluded that torture had been systematically practised in Serbia prior to October 2000.16 Furthermore, the Committee noted with dismay that, despite the gravity of the cases, no significant steps were being taken to investigate them, punish those responsible and compensate the victims. The Committee nevertheless welcomed the establishment of the Commission for Truth and Reconciliation17 with a mandate to encourage and organize research on human rights abuses and breaches of international and humanitarian law and the law of war that took place in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, with a view to establishing the truth and contributing to general reconciliation within Serbia and Montenegro and with neighbouring countries. It noted that the Commission intended to collect as much testimony as possible and to establish a list of victims, but not necessarily a list of perpetrators, since it did not have judicial powers to deal with them. 212. In contrast with the situation prevailing in the country prior to October 2000, the Committee observed that, under the new political regime, the incidence of torture appeared to have dropped considerably and torture was no longer systematic.18 Nonetheless, it was clear that cases of torture continued to occur, particularly in police stations, and that reforms of the police and the judiciary had yet to demonstrate their full effectiveness in preventing and punishing the practice. In order to put an end to an apparent culture of impunity, senior police officers, judges and prosecutors who seemed to adopt a reactive approach to the problem of torture must become proactive in dealing with it. Currently, their actions appear to depend largely on the 81