A/HRC/4/33/Add.2 Page 124 Head of the Regional Representation of ICRC and currently an agreement on technical details related to the visits by ICRC has been reached. 697. Claims that amendments to the Criminal Code have increased the State’s power to punish NGOs and that in 2005 and 2006 a large number of NGOs have been closed down are unfounded. In December 2005 the Parliament adopted amendments to the Administrative Code (as opposed to the Criminal Code), which aim at improving the transparency of NGOs and seek to reinforce their responsibility for the implementation of their own statutes. Those NGOs which work in line with their statutes and the national legislation have nothing to fear. A state has the right to take legal action against persons or organisations that violate the national legislation, in order to guarantee the rule of law as meant by international norms and not by arbitrary interpretation. A State cannot simply ignore when NGOs violate national laws, no matter whether they are international or local. It is in this context that the question of the closure of local and international NGOs has to be considered. 698. Recommendation (i) stated: Magistrates and judges, as well as procurators, should always ask persons brought from MVD or SNB custody how they have been treated and be particularly attentive to their condition, and, where indicated, even in the absence of a formal complaint from the defendant, order a medical examination. 699. Recommendation (j) stated: All measures should be taken to ensure in practice absolute respect for the principle of inadmissibility of evidence obtained by torture in accordance with international standards and the May 1997 Supreme Court resolution. 700. According to information received from NGOs and other sources, in various court trials the principle of non-admissibility of evidence obtained under torture has been violated. In cases where defendants complained about having been tortured in pre-trial detention, judges ruled that the defendants had alleged ill-treatment only to avoid responsibility for their crimes, or did not mention the torture allegations at all. 701. The Government informed that one of the cornerstones of criminal-procedural legislation is the presumption of innocence. A court sentence can be based only on proofs legally collected. In accordance with article 17 of the Criminal-Procedure Code, judges, prosecutors, investigators and interrogators have to respect the dignity of participants in criminal proceedings. The use of torture and illegal methods is prohibited. 702. Point 19 of Resolution No. 17 of the Supreme Court of 19 December 2003, establishes that evidence obtained under torture, with the use of violence, threats, deception, any other cruel or degrading treatment or other illegal measures, and violating the rights of a person to legal aid, cannot form the basis of an accusation, i.e. the investigator, the prosecutor and judge have to ask each person coming from a place of detention how he/she was treated during investigation and interrogation and about the conditions of detention. With regard to each allegation of torture or other illegal methods of interrogation, a thorough examination has to be conducted including a medical-legal examination. Depending on the results, appropriate steps have to be taken (art. 15 of the Criminal-Procedure Code). Judges examine all allegations closely. According to the statistics, in 2005 and 2006, 19 persons were convicted of having committed torture and were punished accordingly. On 24 September 2004 the Supreme Court adopted a resolution “On the Application of Some of the Norms of the Criminal Procedure Legislation on Admission of