E/CN.4/2003/68/Add.2 page 10 27. According to the information received from non-governmental sources and as illustrated by a large number of cases referred to in appendix II, contrary to the Supreme Court’s decision, allegations that confessions have been extracted under torture are, in practice, systematically ignored in the courts, and often serve as the sole basis for conviction, especially in cases concerning CC articles 156, 159 or 244 (see below and appendix I). Requests by lawyers to establish and examine evidence that torture has taken place are said to be completely ignored. The Special Rapporteur has received information that even in cases where a defendant could name alleged perpetrators or medical certificates attested that torture had been carried out, the courts did not order any investigation into the allegations. The sole action sometimes taken by magistrates is to ask the alleged perpetrators to testify in court that they have not used illegal means during the pre-trial investigation. D. Complaints procedures 28. As indicated above, article 44 of the Constitution provides that “everyone shall be entitled to legally defend his rights and freedoms, and shall have the right to appeal any unlawful action of State bodies, officials and public associations”. However, it has been noted above that the right to habeas corpus does not exist in the Uzbek legal system. Besides, it must be underlined that article 53 CPC provides that lawyers have the right to “bring complaints with regard to actions and decisions of the interrogator, investigator, procurator or court”. 1. General Procurator’s Office 29. During the pre-trial detention, complaints must be addressed by alleged victims or persons acting on their behalf to a senior investigator, the head of the relevant MVD or SNB internal investigations department, a civil procurator in the case of MVD officers or a military one in the case of SNB officers. It should be underlined that senior/head investigators have discretionary powers in deciding whether to forward a complaint, with a recommendation or not, to the General Procurator’s Office. The latter has the overall prerogative of supervising the criminal investigation. If the complaint is made during the pre-trial detention, there is no recourse possible to a court. As confirmed by the Acting Chairman of the Supreme Court, the court monitoring of a criminal case starts solely when the procurator transfers the criminal file to the court system. It is only at that point that the pre-trial investigation period is reviewed ex post facto by a magistrate. Non-governmental sources alleged that, in practice, this is often a pure formality. 30. The General Procurator stated that it was highly unfortunate that law enforcement officials had committed violations during investigation and pre-trial detention. Once a complaint is received in an official manner from the alleged victim or her/his relatives, an investigation is immediately launched which would lead to a legal decision. Later, the General Procurator confirmed that his Office can actually act proprio motu. If the facts are confirmed, administrative measures, and possibly criminal prosecution, are initiated. Since January 2002, 40 cases have reportedly been lodged against MVD officers for illegal actions. No statistics were, however, provided regarding the number of cases that would fall within the Special Rapporteur’s mandate. But the General Procurator noted that in numerous cases the complaints are not confirmed. Appeals against the decision of the procurator may be lodged by the alleged victim or on her/his behalf to a procurator of a higher rank, up to the General Procurator. The