A/HRC/4/33/Add.2 Page 112 officials in the absence of defence counsel cannot be a basis for a judgement unless verified by the suspect or the accused before the judge or the court“. Many of these safeguards have not been introduced to the criminal justice system for the first time with the new Criminal Procedure Code. Similar checks and balances aimed at protecting suspects and accused persons against unlawful or arbitrary practices, existed also in the former Criminal Procedure Code No.1412 in various forms. For instance, article 135 of the Law No. 1412 provided the right to access to a defence counsel, assignment of a defence counsel by the State free of charge, and the presence of a defence counsel at all stages of statement-taking and interrogation. Article 135/a ensured that any statement should be made of free will, prohibited unlawful methods for taking statements such as torture, ill-treatment and other methods preventing free will, and envisaged that statements taken through prohibited methods cannot be regarded as evidence even with the consent of the suspect. 630. In view of the above, the rights of suspects and accused persons to defend themselves were fully ensured before 1 June 2005. If a suspect or an accused person objected to the content of any statement taken in the absence of his/her defence counsel, such a statement alone was not considered sufficient for a conviction. As referred to above, judges have discretionary power to assess the value of evidence submitted to the court and to consider all the evidence together before rendering a judgement. In this respect, there has not been a protection gap in terms of safeguards against torture or other degrading treatment or of guarantees to ensure that any statement should be based on free will before the entry into force of the new Criminal Procedure Code. Evidence obtained through torture has always been regarded as unlawful evidence, which entailed criminal liability. Therefore, any statement taken before 1 June 2005 in the absence of a defence counsel during a case that is pending as of 1 June 2005, can be renewed in the presence of a defence counsel on various grounds. For instance, such a renewal can be requested on the basis of the objection that the statement was not made out of free will or that it was extracted under torture, ill treatment, pressure, force or other prohibited methods. Renewal can also be ordered by the court if it is not convinced that the statement or confession was indeed made of free will. This aspect is also given due consideration by the Court of Cassation. In addition, provisions of the new Criminal Procedure Code apply to statements taken following the decision of reversal. Given the fact that the first instance courts and Court of Cassation do have absolute discretion over evidence of torture and ill-treatment, there is no need for a separate review of such evidence by an independent body. On the other hand, if an allegation that a statement was obtained by use of torture against a suspect or an accused before 1 June 2005 is submitted to the relevant authorities, it would be investigated thoroughly. 631. Recommendation (f) stated: Prosecutors and judges should diligently investigate all allegations of torture made by detainees. In the case of prosecutors in the State Security Courts, allegations should also be referred to the public prosecutor for criminal investigation. The investigation of the allegations should be conducted by the prosecutor himself/herself and the necessary staff should be provided for this purpose. 632. According to information received from NGOs and other sources, prosecutors and judges have so far not treated claims of torture or ill-treatment with the necessary diligence. 633. The Government informed that public prosecutors in general initiate investigations concerning allegations of torture and ill-treatment “ex officio” and conduct them personally in accordance with a circular issued by the Minister of Justice on 1 January 2006. Sentences