Ministries. 39.The mechanism for examining complaints and petitions consists of hearing the complainants and individuals and then those under suspicion or implicated. 40.This frequently results in the removal of obstacles to judicial proceedings (justice system officials) cited in complaints and petitions, sometimes involving further investigation of the evidence. 41.Cases of corruption or unethical behaviour are reported to the Minister of Justice who, as appropriate, initiates disciplinary proceedings against the officials concerned. 42.The Inspectorate-General of Ministries receives and processes complaints and petitions regarding interference with the course of justice. 43.The mechanism for examining complaints aims to remove any identified obstacles and facilitate the conclusion of legal proceedings. 44.N.B.: Complaints of human rights violations are examined by the Human Rights Department of the Ministry of Justice instead. 14.More information on the practice of prosecutors in monitoring the legality of detention and in receiving complaints 45.The legality of detention and reception of complaints is monitored through the proper maintenance of the various registers and detention orders. 46.No statistics are available. 15.Information about the number of complaints lodged per year for the last three years before the Constitutional Court, relating to the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty, as well as the results or outcomes of such complaints 47.This information will be provided at a later date. 16.The reports of the President of the Indictments Chamber on its three-monthly visits to prisons since 2005 48.Owing to insufficient means, the Indictments Chamber has not made any visits during the period in question. 17.Further information and concrete examples of investigations and sanctions imposed on officers at fault pursuant to articles 183, 200 and 201 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and related procedures before the Indictments Chamber for the years 2005–2008 49.Regarding monitoring of the activities of Judicial Police officers, several cases have been brought before the Indictments Chamber and concluded with the imposition of sanctions on the officers involved. The sanctions often consist of a warning, with or without the incident being noted in the officer’s file. 50.The following hearings were held: (a)Hearing of 19 October 2009 Case No. 071/PG/09 against one Judicial Police officer: warning issued and a note made in the officer’s file. (b)Hearing of 26 October 2009 Case No. 091/PG/09 against two Judicial Police officers: both were retired from service, annulling the basis for proceedings. (c)Hearing of 7 December 2009 Case No. 099/PG/09 against two Judicial Police officers: found guilty of illegal detention. (d)Hearing of 14 December 2009 Case No. 075/PG/04 against three Judicial Police officers: one was retired from service and the other two were found guilty of illegal detention and received warnings without a note being made in their files. Case No. 146/PG/05 against two Judicial Police officers: charge of illegal detention dismissed. (e)Hearing of 21 December 2009 Case No. 070/PG/04 against one Judicial Police officer: found guilty of illegal detention and given a warning, but without a note being made in his file.