Public Prosecutor’s Office 87.The Subcommittee noted serious shortcomings on the part of the Office of the Attorney for Human Rights in Tegucigalpa and in San Pedro Sula, in the investigation of cases and the filing of charges of torture and other types of police abuse. These offices informed the Subcommittee that they were not competent to act on all the cases of ill-treatment brought to their attention, for example when visiting prison facilities, and investigations were launched only when they received complaints. The Attorney for Human Rights of San Pedro Sula indicated that there were only 7 attorneys in his office, in addition to the coordinator for the entire north-west of the country, and that there was only one investigator for the more than 600 pending cases. 88.According to the attorneys, what is needed is a body of special investigators so that prosecutors are no longer entirely dependent on the police force to carry out their work. An investigative body for prosecutors had been created but unfortunately had been placed under police authority some years ago. The difficulties faced by the attorneys for human rights in investigating cases of police abuse are multiplied in regions of the country where there are no such special attorneys’ offices and it is ordinary prosecutors who have jurisdiction. It is clear that it can be no easy task for a prosecutor to bring proceedings against a police officer they work with on a daily basis. 89.The prosecutors’ lack of independent investigative capacity is compounded by the various institutional weaknesses noted and together these give rise to countless cases of torture and other forms of police abuse that are not reported because the victims are afraid, knowing that their complaint will be registered and investigated by the perpetrator’s or perpetrators’ own colleagues. Many contacts, including victims, civil society organizations, prosecutors, public defenders, judges and members of CONADEH, cited this situation as a major deterrent to the filing of complaints. Some of those sources indicated that 90 per cent of complainants were subjected to intimidation. They also cited cases of intimidation of prosecutors responsible for investigations. In addition, the identification of perpetrators is hindered by the fact that the police officers cover for each other. Consequently, it is very difficult to obtain a conviction in human rights cases. 90.The Tegucigalpa Special Attorney for Human Rights also informed the Subcommittee that the phase of criminal proceedings preceding prosecution was obscure and not clearly specified in the Code of Criminal Procedure. In her view the law should be amended to make it more transparent. 91. In its preliminary observations, the Subcommittee recommended that the State should provide the Public Prosecutor’s Office with its own investigative capacity to enable it to correct the existing situation of impunity through independent, prompt and thorough enquiries. Until such a body is created, attorneys for human rights should be given as many analysts as they need to boost their investigative capacity. 92. The Subcommittee also recommended that a register for complaints in cases of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment should be created in the Public Prosecutor’s Office. 93.In its comments on the preliminary observations, the Office of the Attorney-General rejected the Subcommittee’s criticism of the investigative work of the police. It pointed out that, taking account of staffing constraints, police officers displayed a much higher level of professionalism than in past decades. It also stated that the Public Prosecutor’s Office was open to all and sought to provide a special protection programme for witnesses and victims in such cases and in other cases of organized crime. It must be acknowledged that the workload of the National Police far outweighed their capacities, owing to recent events. 94.The Ministry of Security, too, in its comments on the Subcommittee’s preliminary observations, disagreed with the recommendation on the creation of an investigative body within the Public Prosecutor’s Office. The Ministry said that the shortcomings in criminal investigation were not a matter of whether or not the Public Prosecutor’s Office had its own investigative body, but of other factors such as: (a) the ability of the Public Prosecutor to take the lead as technical and legal director in an investigation; (b) the availability or otherwise of material, technical and scientific resources to carry out an efficient investigation; and (c) the competency and professionalism of the officials involved. In addition, to accept the argument that one police officer cannot investigate another is tantamount to saying that no member of any professional group can assess a colleague. Can a forensic physician not give an expert opinion on another’s professional practice? Can a prosecutor from the Public Prosecutor’s Office not bring proceedings against a colleague? The real issue is not a person’s profession, but their professionalism and leadership, and the commitment they bring to their work. 95. The Subcommittee repeats its recommendations concerning the Public Prosecutor’s Office. It should be provided with the necessary means to carry out prompt and independent investigations of the complaints of torture that it receives. The necessary measures must be taken to ensure that such investigations are carried out in accordance with the principles set forth in chapter III of the Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Istanbul Protocol). Judiciary 96.Given the mass of information received on the use of torture and ill-treatment, it is striking how few cases there are in which sentence is passed. The State party’s initial report to the Committee against Torture shows that, according to the statistics provided by the judiciary for the period between 2003 and July 2007, seven judgements were handed down for the crime of torture, and four of those were dismissals. Two of the three remaining cases resulted in convictions (prison sentences of 4 and 5 years in one case, and 6 and 12 in the other) and a final decision is pending on appeal in the third case. 97.The Subcommittee took note of three cases in each of which the trial judges in San Pedro Sula had sentenced police officers to four years and eight months’ imprisonment and a ban on holding public office, for the offences of wrongful detention and torture.