proceedings against members of their unit. Furthermore, the members received allegations indicating that the Decree and police practice failed to ensure that any injured party is informed of the progress and outcome of the proceedings. 190. Regarding the functioning of the disciplinary tribunals, NGOs reported that, although the police are now far more responsive to the complaints and observations of human rights organizations, they frequently attempt to deny that a specific instance of torture occurred or, if that is impossible because of compelling evidence (such as medical records, photographs and eyewitnesses), they tell the public that the case will be investigated and the perpetrators brought to account. However, this does not always happen. In serious cases of torture, and in spite of clear evidence to the contrary, disciplinary tribunals regularly give more credence to the statements of the officers involved than to those of the victims. Furthermore, there seem to be instances in which officers serving on disciplinary tribunals have themselves been accused of committing acts of torture. 191. In its study on policing referred to earlier, OSCE said that there was a need to assure the quality of the work of all Internal Control Units in a way that satisfied the public and that in order to address the public’s concerns it was necessary to create an independent body with substantial powers of oversight and intervention. The report added that there must be “external and totally independent oversight of police investigation of complaints in the future if the police are to be held properly accountable, but the Authority responsible for it must possess robust powers to require the production of documents, papers and files relating to the complaint and be empowered to direct further investigation if necessary”.6 2. Criminal proceedings 192. The members of the Committee noted a number of weaknesses in the legislation regarding the prohibition of torture and in the functioning of the institutions charged with the investigation of complaints. 193. In its conclusions and recommendations on the initial report of Yugoslavia, the Committee expressed concern at the absence in the criminal law of a provision defining torture as a specific crime in accordance with article 1 of the Convention and recommended that the crime of torture be incorporated verbatim into the Yugoslav criminal codes.7 This situation remains unchanged. As a result, the perpetrators of acts of torture can only be charged under criminal provisions such as “extraction of statements”8 or “civil injury”.9 The scope of these provisions, however, is more restrictive than the definition in article 1. For instance, situations where torture is committed at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official do not seem to be envisaged in those provisions. Furthermore, judges in general do not seem to be fully aware of Yugoslavia’s international obligations regarding human rights and the Convention in particular. This was confirmed by the members of the Serbian Supreme Court with whom the Committee members met, who stated that judges often learned about these obligations and the jurisprudence of international bodies only when NGOs brought them to their attention. 194. Broadly speaking, it seems that judges and prosecutors only undertake an investigation if they receive a formal complaint from the victim or his lawyer. When asked about the reaction of the investigating judges when somebody complained of torture, the members of the Supreme Court said that, in theory, the judges had to inform the public prosecutor about the facts and that 77