A/HRC/4/33/Add.2 Page 44 • To initiate a preliminary investigation immediately and on a mandatory basis, i.e. • To conduct investigative actions immediately after receipt of a respective report on torture/inhuman and degrading treatment. • To conduct a preliminary investigation within a reasonable delay. Two months are to be regarded as reasonable time for a preliminary investigation into the facts of torture, inhuman and degrading treatment. That term may be extended under exceptional circumstances for the purpose of completing the investigation. • To decline any possibility of using plea agreements with respect to victims of torture (to avoid shadowing of the torture cases) and/or applying plea agreements with respect to persons accused of torture (art. 1441 of CCG), threat to torture (art. 1442 of CCG) and inhumane and degrading treatment (art. 1443 of CCG). 227. Recommendation (e) stated: Forensic medical services be placed under judicial or another independent authority, not under the same governmental authority as the police and the penitentiary system. Public forensic medical services should not have a monopoly on expert forensic evidence for judicial purposes; 228. According to non-governmental sources, medical examinations are not independent and priority is given to conclusions issued by State appointed doctors/experts over those issued by independent experts. In accordance with article 19 of the Criminal Procedure Code,4 conclusions made by the state-appointed doctors and independent doctors have equal legal force. However, the amendment made on 16 December 2005, to subparagraph “g” of article 29 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, implies that only conclusions from the state forensic medical examination or state forensic-psychiatric examination can serve as grounds for the suspension of a criminal case. From this it follows that that priority is given to the conclusions of the state forensic medical institutions, thus rendering ineffective the articles guaranteeing alternative expertise or the right of a party to invite the doctor of its own choice at their own expense. Also, the state forensic medical institution, the National Bureau of Forensic Expertise5 is a body under the authority of the Ministry of Justice,6 structurally inconsistent with its requirement of independence and impartiality. 229. The Government informed that article 29 deals with the grounds of suspension of criminal proceedings and paragraph “g” is one of them within the list. It is the judge or the prosecutor who decides on suspension of criminal proceedings. Article 29 shall be read in conjunction with article 364 of CPC on alternative expertise, which reads as follows: “Each party to case has a right to acquire, on its own initiative and at its own expenses, an expert conclusion to determine the circumstances, which, according to his/her opinion, might assist him/her to defend his/her interests. The respective institution is obliged to carry out the expertise requested and paid for by the party. If the party so requests, the results of the expert conclusion must be attached to the criminal case and shall be examined along with other evidence.” This means that a party to the case is not restricted to request alternative expert conclusions even if the state 4 No evidence shall have a predetermined force. An investigator, prosecutor, judge, court shall assess legal evidence based on their intimate belief. 5 See the Decree of the Minister of Justice N 1549 on approving the charter of the National Bureau of Forensic Expertise. 6 Paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the charter of the National Bureau of Forensic Expertise states, “the head of the bureau is appointed and dismissed by the Ministry of Justice of Georgia.” Pursuant to subparagraph “b” of paragraph 5 of Article 6 provides that, “the head of the bureau reports to the Ministry of Justice on the activities carried out.”