A/HRC/4/33/Add.2 Page 39 article, immediately after arrest, the suspect is entitled to demand free medical examination and findings of the mentioned medical examination in the written form, as well as the assignment of medical expertise in order to examine his/her state of health and this request must immediately be fulfilled. Complaints regarding the refusal to conduct medical expertise may be lodged with the District (City) Court of the place of investigation and must be considered by the court within 24 hours from making such a complaint. 206. The following aspects shall be taken into consideration while reading article 73(f) of the CPC: Paragraph 73(f) of CPC lists two distinct categories – medical examination and medical expertise. Medical examination is an absolute right that can neither be denied nor restricted. As for medical expertise, it is defined in article 356 of CPC, which notes that: “Expertise is requested by the investigator or the prosecutor, or by court decision based on the request of the defence side, if there is a need to have an opinion of a specialist in the sphere of science, technology, in the relevant field of art or other sphere for the determination of important factual circumstances of the case.” 207. The second sentence of article 73(f) refers only to medical expertise, which is a serious and complex procedure. It does not refer to the medical examination that has to be carried out in every individual case of detention even for prophylactic purposes. It shall be noted, that, as a general rule, international human rights bodies, while referring to three basic rights of the person detained by law enforcement authorities, use the wording “the right to request medical examination by a doctor” and not medical expertise, thus the relevant provision of the Georgian legislation fully complies with international human rights standards in this respect. 208. Furthermore, the refusal of the appointment of medical expertise and the appeal procedure has several safeguards in itself; namely, the court has to rule within 24 hours after the appeal application has been submitted. Consequently, CPC provides for a very rapid review procedure in order to make sure that possible traces of ill-treatment do not disappear and the final decision regarding the appointment rests with the judicial body. Article 356(1) of CPC provides for an additional safeguard, stating that even if the investigator, prosecutor or specialist has the special knowledge required, it does not automatically preclude a request for expertise. Therefore, the discretion regarding a final decision on a medical expertise rests with the court. 209. On June 23, 2005, the Law on Imprisonment amended to include new article 922: “Medical examination of the prisoner is obligatory in each case of taking and returning of the person from the penitentiary establishment, except for his/her taking or returning to/from the Court hearing. The administration of the penitentiary system should be immediately informed about the result of the medical examination.” This means that, apart from the medical examination being obligatory for the suspects, this Law guarantees similar rights for a person from the moment he/she enters the penitentiary facility. 210. Recommendation (c) stated: All allegations of torture and ill-treatment be promptly and thoroughly investigated by an independent authority with no connection to that investigating or prosecuting the case against the alleged victim; 211. According to non-governmental sources, initial investigations into allegations of torture continue to be opened either by an internal investigative department of the agency responsible for the alleged abuse (Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Interior) or by the General Prosecutor’s Office, which is also responsible for prosecuting the case against the victim. Therefore impunity