E/CN.4/2003/68/Add.2 page 21 67. The Special Rapporteur regrets the absence of legal guarantees such as the right to habeas corpus and the right to prompt and confidential access to a lawyer and relatives. He further observes that pre-trial detainees are held in facilities which are under the same jurisdiction as investigators in the case. According to the Director of the National Centre for Human Rights, the question of placing SIZO and colonies/prisons under a different jurisdiction is currently being debated. The Special Rapporteur believes that only IVS should ultimately remain under the jurisdiction of the MVD or SNB and that suspects should be kept there for a short period of time. 68. The Special Rapporteur believes, on the basis of the numerous testimonies (including on a number of deaths in custody) he received during the mission, not least from those whose evident fear led them to request anonymity and who thus had nothing to gain personally from making their allegations, that torture or similar ill-treatment is systematic as defined by the Committee against Torture (see endnote).6 Even though only a small number of torture cases can be proved with absolute certainty, the copious testimonies gathered, only a limited number of which appear in appendix II to the present report, are so consistent in their description of torture techniques and the places and circumstances in which torture is perpetrated that the pervasive and persistent nature of torture throughout the investigative process cannot be denied. The Special Rapporteur also observes that torture and other forms of ill-treatment appear to be used indiscriminately against persons charged for activities qualified as serious crimes such as acts against State interests, as well as petty criminals and others. 69. There remains the question of the level at which political responsibility arises. While the Special Rapporteur notes that some official authorities acknowledged the existence of incidental practices of torture, the Special Rapporteur has no doubt that the system of torture is condoned, if not encouraged, at the level of the heads of the places of detention where it takes place or of the chief investigators. If the top leadership of these forces and those politically responsible above them do not know of the existence of a system which the Special Rapporteur’s delegation was able to discover in a few days, it can only be because of a lack of a desire to know. Moreover, in the light of information repeatedly conveyed to the authorities by the Special Rapporteur himself, United Nations human rights monitoring bodies such as the Human Rights Committee and international and local NGOs, the lack of such awareness may well reflect an unwillingness to look too closely at the problem. The very hierarchical nature of the law enforcement bodies also makes it difficult to believe that the top leadership of these forces is not aware of the situation. The result is that impunity largely prevails among those charged with investigating suspected criminal activities. 70. Accordingly, the Special Rapporteur makes the following recommendations: (a) First and foremost, the highest authorities need to publicly condemn torture in all its forms. The highest authorities, in particular those responsible for law enforcement activities, should declare unambiguously that they will not tolerate torture