long as a preliminary inquiry or criminal investigation into possible ill-treatment is underway, the possible victims of ill-treatment should under no circumstances be returned to the custody of the law enforcement agency where it is alleged the illtreatment was inflicted.24 In Popov v. Russia, the European Court of Human Rights mentioned that it is of the utmost importance for the effective investigation of ill-treatment allegations that applicants be able to freely participate in the investigation process without being subjected to any form of pressure from the authorities to withdraw or modify their complaints. In this context, “pressure” includes not only direct coercion and flagrant acts of intimidation but also other improper indirect acts or contacts designed to dissuade or discourage applicants from pursuing a Convention remedy.25 One of the aims of Georgia as a democratic State is to prevent, suppress and effectively investigate all facts of ill-treatment. At the same time, this is an international obligation assumed by Georgia under its international treaties. Fulfillment of this obligation requires Georgia to have an effective mechanism in place for the protection of victims of ill-treatment. Victims of ill-treatment as well as their family members must be provided with additional guarantees and protection against any violence, threat of violence or any other forms of intimidation that might occur between the commencement of investigation and completion of judicial process. As a result of its activities implemented during 2014, the National Preventive Mechanism concluded that protection of possible victims of ill-treatment from repeated pressure and intimidation is a matter for concern. In many cases we dealt with during the reporting period, prisoners were reporting ill-treatment administered against them to the Public Defender’s trustees first but were rejecting their statements afterwards in the presence of representatives of investigative authorities. Then, at follow-up meetings with the Public Defender’s trustees, they were stating that they had been intimidated by persons who administered ill-treatment against them, which was the reason for them not to pursue their complaints. The prisoners were mentioning, in particular, that they did not feel safe and protected from repeated pressure because they remained in the same penitentiary institutions and under the supervision of the same staff that have ill-treated them. The National Preventive Mechanism believes that the Georgian law does not envisage guarantees and mechanisms of protection against repeated victimization of victims of ill-treatment at places of deprivation of liberty. According to Article 91 of the Law on Civil Service, if on the basis of a prisoner’s complaint an in-house inquiry is commenced against a civil servant on account of his/her possible perpetration of ill-treatment, such civil servant may be suspended from office. However, if a criminal investigation is commenced under Articles 159-162 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a civil servant 24 25 Report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) on its visit to Albania from 23 May to 3 June 2005, CPT/Inf(2006) 24, par. 52. See also CPT’s Public Statement Concerning the Chechen Republic of the Russian Federation, Appendix I, CPT/Inf (2007) 17, par. 53. Popov v. Russia, Judgment of 13 July, 2006, application no. 26853/04 §246. 26 NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM OF GEORGIA