E/CN.4/1997/7 page 10 Armenia 22. By letter dated 12 June 1996 the Special Rapporteur informed the Government that he had received reports of beatings and other forms of ill-treatment inflicted for the purpose of obtaining information, “confessions” or intimidation upon a number of persons detained in Armenia. Detainees were reported frequently to be denied access to family members while their cases were being investigated. Many alleged victims of ill-treatment were said to be reluctant to make official complaints about the abuse for fear that they might suffer reprisals. The Special Rapporteur also transmitted six individual cases and information concerning a group of individuals. Observations 23. In the light of the information he has received, the Special Rapporteur shares the concern expressed by the Committee against Torture “about the number of allegations it has received with regard to ill-treatment perpetrated by public authorities during arrest and police custody” (A/51/44, para. 95) and shares the Committee’s “doubts about the effectiveness of the provisions for the safeguard of persons in police custody” (para. 94). He urges the Government to give serious consideration to the Committee’s recommendations (paras. 96-101). Austria 24. The Special Rapporteur transmitted to the Government two individual cases, to which the Government provided replies. The Government also replied to one case transmitted in 1995. Azerbaijan 25. The Special Rapporteur transmitted to the Government one individual case. Bahrain 26. By letter dated 6 May 1996 the Special Rapporteur advised the Government that he had continued to receive information indicating that most persons arrested for political reasons in Bahrain were held incommunicado, a condition of detention conducive to torture. The Security and Intelligence Service (SIS) and the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) were alleged frequently to conduct interrogation of such detainees under torture. The practice of torture by these agencies was said to be undertaken with impunity, with no known cases of officials having been prosecuted for acts of torture or other ill-treatment. In cases heard before the State Security Court, defendants were reportedly convicted solely on the basis of uncorroborated confessions made to political or security officials or on the testimony of such officials that confessions had been made. Although defendants often alleged that their “confessions” had been extracted under torture, impartial investigations of such claims were reportedly never ordered by the court. In addition, medical examinations of defendants were rarely ordered by the court, unless the defendant displayed obvious signs of injury. Such outward displays of injury were said to be uncommon, since torture victims were usually brought to trial well after their injuries had healed.