A/HRC/4/33/Add.2 Page 111 624. It should also be underlined that article 169 of the Criminal Procedure Code makes it compulsory to record all stages of proceedings during the investigation. Article 169 of the Criminal Procedure Code states that during statement-taking or questioning of the suspect, hearing of witness or expert witness, on-site inspection or medical examination, a Public Prosecutor or a judge of the court of peace and a clerk of record shall be present. Each proceeding of an investigation is recorded and signed by these authorities. These provisions constitute an effective safeguard against any attempt to influence the conduct of a medical examination or the content of a medical report. Furthermore, any act aimed at altering evidence or preparing a false expert witness report are offences punishable by imprisonment under the Turkish Criminal Code. 625. The discretionary power of judges with respect to consideration of evidence has been stipulated in article 217 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which envisages that the evidence submitted to the court and examined in a hearing is freely considered by the judge according to his/her personal conviction. In this regard, the weight of any independent expert opinion submitted to the court and examined in a hearing, shall be freely evaluated by the judge according to his/her personal conviction. 626. As regards the Forensic Medicine Institution, it is not dependent on the Ministry of the Interior as suggested by the NGO submission. With the adoption of the Law on the Forensic Medicine Institution No. 6119 in 1998, the Forensic Medicine Institution has been affiliated to the Ministry of Justice. Similar organizational structures exist in many other countries. Furthermore, the independence and impartiality of the Forensic Medicine Institution in Turkey has been confirmed in many rulings of the European Court of Human Rights. 627. Recommendation (e) stated: Prosecutors and judges should not require conclusive proof of physical torture or ill-treatment (much less final conviction of an accused perpetrator) before deciding not to rely as against the detainee on confessions or information alleged to have been obtained by such treatment; indeed, the burden of proof should be on the State to demonstrate the absence of coercion. Moreover, this should also apply in respect of proceedings against alleged perpetrators of torture or ill-treatment, as long as the periods of custody do not conform to the criteria indicated in (a) and (b) above. 628. According to information received from NGOs and other sources, torture and illtreatment claims are not taken into consideration if they lack conclusive proof and the cases are regularly dismissed. Furthermore, prosecutors and judges have accepted evidence and information allegedly obtained by torture. 629. The Government informed that the new Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) has introduced many safeguards to prevent the prohibited methods of taking statements or interrogating, including torture or ill-treatment and their use as evidence. Article 148 of CPC envisages that any statement by the suspect or the accused should be made of free will, describes the prohibited methods and stipulates that the statements obtained by resorting to such methods shall not be admitted as evidence even if the suspect or the accused has given his/her consent. Paragraph 4 of article 148 envisages that a statement taken by law enforcement authorities in the absence of a lawyer shall not be relied upon unless it is confirmed by the suspect or the accused person before the court. Furthermore, a safeguard has been introduced in the Constitution: article 38 stipulates that findings obtained in violation of laws cannot be admitted as evidence. Article 148(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code states that “The statement taken by law enforcement