and actually requiring a set number of convictions or penalizing prosecutors for acquittals. 77. The use of quantitative indicators for prosecutors was also discussed at the 2018 Expert Forum on Criminal Justice for Central Asia, co-organized by ODIHR, OHCHR, UNODC and OSCE field operations. Experts advocated for a shift away from quantitative to more qualitative performance indicators: “Quantity may be a useful indicator prompting further enquiries into the work of a prosecutor, for example, if there is significant divergence of conviction rates amongst different prosecutors in similar types of cases. However, it was pointed out that even in these cases, there may be a reasonable explanation [...] Referring to international good practice, it was therefore recommended to include qualitative indicators of performance focusing on professional (e.g. ability to present evidence, capacity to draft motions, quality of court presence), personal (e.g. ability to cope with workload) and social factors (e.g. respectful treatment of parties, witnesses and victims).”171 78. As a promising practice example, in one Western European OSCE participating State prosecutors are assessed according to a list of criteria, none of which are related to numerical statistics on acquittals. The assessment criteria include factors such as legal knowledge, ability to communicate and efficiency. Numerical data is only used to assess the prosecutor’s workload.172 Judges 79. Judges are also known to be subject in some jurisdictions to performance evaluations on the basis of acquittal rates or conviction rates, respectively. In certain countries, acquittal rates or the outcomes of court cases are informally used as performance indicators, and are likely to affect promotion opportunities, pay and disciplinary measures. As outlined in the preceding sections, judges can and should play a pivotal role in identifying instances where torture has occurred and removing incentives for torture. This may take the form of inquiring into whether suspects have been ill-treated, ensuring compliance with procedural rights, excluding evidence obtained by torture and initiating investigations into allegations of 171 ODIHR, ”Seventh Expert Forum on Criminal Justice for Central Asia Conference Report”, (2018), p. 16. 172 MONITEUR BELGE, Arrêté royal modifiant l’arrêté royal du 20 juillet 2000 déterminant les modalités d’évaluation des magistrats, les critères d’évaluation et leur ponderation, (13 September 2004) [C − 2004/0966], Belgium. 50