A/HRC/22/53/Add.1 number of cases in which judges had ordered a criminal investigation into alleged torture or ill-treatment on the basis of a complaint. Even when there seems to be clear evidence of torture and mistreatment, judges either do not react to such statements or simply interrogate law enforcement officers, who usually deny the use of torture during interrogation. The Special Rapporteur was informed that, often, when defendants try to demonstrate their injuries in the court, the judge interrupts them and refers them to the investigator or prosecutor. In practice, prosecutors rarely look beyond the results provided by investigative officers, and judges are widely seen as merely rubberstamping prosecutorial decisions. 49. The Special Rapporteur was informed by several defendants that, during their pretrial hearing in November 2010, the judge had repeatedly ignored testimonies about beating and torture. Reportedly, some of the defendants were pressured by law enforcement officials and in the presence of the investigator to retract their earlier allegations of torture and ill-treatment. Forensic examinations were conducted with a significant delay, with the conclusion that no physical injuries were found, while the prosecutor concluded that torture had not been used, without any explanation of how this conclusion was reached. 50. The Special Rapporteur received testimonies on the failure of judges to dismiss or return cases for further investigation in instances where confessions had been allegedly obtained as a result of torture and recanted by the defendant at the first meeting with the judge. 51. In other cases where detainees raised torture allegations, judges would enquire about the reasons why a formal complaint had not been submitted earlier or why allegations had not been raised during the preliminary investigation. The Special Rapporteur was informed that, unless there was a complaint with allegations of torture, the prosecutor would not order an investigation. In the case of complaints prevented from being filed at an early stage, identification and corroboration of torture is more challenging. 52. The Special Rapporteur recalls that article 13 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment does not require the formal submission of a complaint of torture; it is sufficient for torture only to have been alleged by the victim for the State to be under an obligation promptly and impartially to examine the allegation. 10 The Special Rapporteur notes that the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for the automatic investigation of any case of torture or ill-treatment brought to their attention, even when victims do not lodge complaints through the prescribed legal channels. If this was regularly done, however, the implementation of these provisions should be reflected on a larger number of cases initiated by the prosecutorial bodies. 3. Burden of proof and independent medical examinations 53. The Special Rapporteur notes that, although under article 21 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure a judge, court, investigator or inquiry officer is not allowed to shift the burden of proof to the defendant, it does not make specific reference to allegations of torture or other forms of ill-treatment. It further fails to indicate that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, to prove beyond reasonable doubt that any confession made has not been obtained by unlawful means, including torture and similar ill-treatment. The Special Rapporteur welcomes the Supreme Court resolution dated 5 June 2012 establishing that the burden of proof lies with the prosecutor. 54. The Special Rapporteur was unable to obtain information on instances when judges and prosecutors had been known to have ordered prompt medical examinations on their own initiative in response to allegations or signs of abuse. The Special Rapporteur notes 10 CAT/C/20/D/59/1996, para. 8.6. 11