with the gravity of the crime committed. The sentences rarely exceed six months’ imprisonment and are frequently suspended, which allows the police officers in question to keep their jobs.13 They also reported that normally police officers are not suspended from their duties while they are under investigation. Members of the Supreme Court shared the view that only a few cases of torture reach the courts. The Deputy Minister of Justice of Serbia said that only in a small number of cases do the victims of torture file complaints and that an even smaller number end up in convictions. Furthermore, the sentences given by the judges are generally very light, and are sometimes even conditional sentences. 200. NGOs also alleged that very often trials have to be postponed, even several times in the same case, because of failure by the accused policemen to show up at the hearings. Members of the Supreme Court confirmed this allegation. Apparently, when confronted with this situation judges complain to the competent head of the police, but such complaints do not always receive a proper response.14 201. Representatives of the Sandzak Committee for the Protection of Human Rights told the Committee members about some of the difficulties they faced when filing criminal complaints about incidents that had taken place some years earlier. They said that in 2001 and 2002 they filed 33 complaints regarding acts falling under articles 65 and 66 of the Serbian Criminal Code that had taken place in Sandzak, mainly in the 1990s. Only two, however, were under investigation; all the others had been dismissed. They said that it was very difficult for the lawyers to submit medical evidence, given that between 1992 and 1997 medical institutions were not allowed to provide medical reports to victims of police brutality. The documentary evidence that accompanied complaints consisted mainly of testimonies, names of witnesses and photographs. They said that, in their opinion, the District Prosecutor misinterpreted article 65 of the Serbian Criminal Code: according to his understanding, a crime existed only if the acts in question resulted in serious bodily harm. Another difficulty they encountered was that some of the cases involved crimes that were subject to statutory limitations.15 202. When the Committee members took these allegations up with the District Prosecutor of Novi Pazar, he pointed out that the time limit for submitting complaints under articles 65 and 66 was five years and that many of the cases were therefore subject to statutory limitations. He added that, apart from the 33 cases referred to above, his Office and the municipal judges had dealt with many others during the previous 10 years. He promised to collect data and some statistics in this regard and to forward them to the Committee. No information, however, was ever received. IV. FINDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE WITH RESPECT TO MONTENEGRO 203. Only a few of the cases reported to the Committee by NGOs since 1997 occurred in Montenegro. During the visit, NGOs in Montenegro provided the Committee members with information about some cases. One NGO stated that its lawyers had filed 20 complaints which, at the time of the visit, were at different stages of the criminal procedure. None of the Committee’s interlocutors described the use of torture in the Republic as systematic, either in the past or at the present time. 204. During their stay in Montenegro the members of the Committee visited the prison in Spuž. The Committee had not been informed of allegations of torture or ill-treatment in that prison. The prison director explained that, during the previous three years, he had been engaged 79