it was up to the public prosecutor to initiate proceedings. They added that in practice, however, the public prosecutors took action only when a lawyer filed a complaint and brought the case to public notice. 195. The lack of prosecutorial action was even more flagrant in the past and in regions such as Kosovo and Sandzak.10 When Committee members raised this question with the Public Prosecutor of Serbia, especially regarding cases that occurred before October 2000, he said that some prosecutors were dealing with cases but that he did not have information about them at present. His Office had also dealt with some war crimes. However, they were very difficult to investigate because the evidence had to be provided by the police, who were not always willing to cooperate.11 196. One of the first obstacles encountered by the victims when filing complaints is the pressure to refrain from doing so put on them by the police, who threaten to press charges of their own against them. If the victims nevertheless go ahead with their complaints, the police systematically file complaints against them for obstructing a law enforcement officer in the performance of his duty (article 213 of the Serbian Criminal Code) or for breaching the public peace. The Committee members were informed of one such case in which the four-month suspended prison sentence for alleged obstruction (swearing at police officers) was almost as harsh as that given to a police officer for causing bodily injury. Furthermore, it was repeatedly alleged that the police complaint was usually dealt with very quickly, whereas the victim’s complaint was investigated very slowly or not at all. While members of the Serbian Supreme Court told the Committee members that they could neither confirm nor dismiss this allegation, the Public Prosecutor said that he was aware of the situation. 197. Regarding the role of prosecutors in the investigation of complaints, a number of interlocutors, including the Public Prosecutor himself, underlined the fact that prosecutors have no control, in practice, over the police as far as the collection of evidence is concerned.12 The Committee members note with concern that this is contrary to the provisions of article 46 of CPC, according to which the Public Prosecutor shall be competent to request that an investigation be carried out and to direct pre-trial proceedings. The same provision states that police officers and other State authorities competent to investigate criminal offences are under obligation to proceed with their inquiry whenever the competent public prosecutor so requests. 198. NGOs reported that prosecutors very often fail to prosecute acts of torture and do not even inform the alleged victim about the outcome of his/her complaint. The lack of notification, however, can be an important obstacle to the continuation of the proceedings. Under article 61 of CPC, when the prosecutor dismisses a criminal complaint or decides to withdraw charges, the injured party may assume the capacity of private prosecutor and proceed with the case within eight days of being notified of the prosecutor’s decision. If the injured party does not receive such notification, the Code provides a time period of three months, starting from the date the complaint was dismissed or the charges withdrawn, for the injured party to institute criminal proceedings. Members of the Supreme Court confirmed that failure to notify was very common but that judges allowed the injured party to continue the proceedings as private prosecutor even in the absence of such notification. 199. NGOs provided information on a number of cases in which police officers had been found guilty of acts relating to torture. They alleged, however, that few cases reached the courts and that very seldom did those responsible for acts of torture receive sentences commensurate 78