Due largely to the need to deter the would-be perpetrators of ill-treatment, both the Court and the CPT underscore the importance not only of adequate levels of punishment but also of legal certainty in terms of how ill-treatment will be punished and under what provisions: “As to the severity of the sentences pronounced, it can only be said that in sentencing the police officers to the minimum penalties the courts overlooked a number of factors – such as the particular nature of the offence and the gravity of the damage done – which they should have taken into account under Turkish law.”204 “53. It is also essential that the appropriate charge be brought against persons suspected of ill-treatment. The information gathered during the visit indicated that, when action is taken by prosecutors, they usually bring a case under Article 250 of the Criminal Code, for “arbitrary acts”, the sentence for which can be, and often is a fine. Case 3 is but one example of where this was done, although the circumstances described in the indictment appear to suggest the requisite elements of Article 314, proscribing the use of violence during an investigation in order to force a statement, testimony or confession.”205 The Strasbourg Court also assesses the adequacy of the range of punishments in relation to the types of culpability involved, particularly where a combination of criminal and disciplinary sanctions is expected to follow: “Even assuming that they were suspended, it remains the fact that no disciplinary proceedings were ever taken against the officers or disciplinary penalties imposed on them, although the sentences pronounced against them comprised not only imprisonment but also disciplinary measures of suspension from duty.”206 The CPT also strongly criticises failures to apply disciplinary measures when relevant violations are established: “Despite the fact that the alleged ill-treatment was confirmed by the prosecutor, no disciplinary measures were taken to assess the role of the police officers present during the incident (for example, none of the police officers present had reported the ill-treatment to the competent prosecutor, although they had been under a legal obligation to do so).”207 204. Okkali v. Turkey, Judgment of 16 October 2006, application no. 52067/99, para. 73. 205. CPT’s Report on the visit to Albania from 23 May to 3 June 2005, CPT/Inf (2006) 24, para. 54. 206. Okkali v. Turkey, Judgment of 16 October 2006, application no. 52067/99, para. 71. 207. CPT’s Report on the visit to Albania carried out from 13 to 18 July 2003, CPT/Inf (2006) 22, para. 38. Explanatory note ► Page 69