E/CN.4/2001/66/Add.2 page 49 person(s) arrested is compulsory, and another when the time limit for temporary detention has been reached. According to NGOs and prosecutors, delegados or police officers accompanying a torture victim to an IML would often dictate to the doctor the content of his/her report. Furthermore, a number of detainees whom the Special Rapporteur met said that for fear of reprisals they did not complain about the treatment they had received when they were examined at an IML. Many complained of being brought to the IML by their torturers and allegedly intimidated and threatened during transport. A number of them are believed to have invented stories in order to respond to queries by doctors in order not to implicate any law enforcement officials. This is also said to be the case when the alleged torture occurred in a prison since in that case victims are accompanied by military police officers who are also involved in the surveillance of prisons in a number of states. The State Secretary for Social Defence of Pernambuco denied the allegations, often heard by the Special Rapporteur, that law enforcement officials were usually present in the IML examining room. It is also alleged that IML forensic experts only record external and visible injuries. Furthermore, medical reports by independent medical practitioners are said not to have the same probative value in court as IML testimony. 148. While not in a position to assess the extent to which the above allegations reveal a generalized problem, it is evident that the problem is real enough in respect of a substantial number of IML officers. Moreover, as long as these officers remain under the same governmental authority as the police, doubts as to the reliability of their findings can only persist. H. Criminalization of Torture 149. On 28 September 1989, Brazil ratified the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 1984 and submitted on 26 May 2000 its initial report pursuant to article 19 (CAT/C/9/Add.16), which was due in October 1990. According to this report, article 5 of the Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil of 5 October 1988 lists the rights guaranteed in international treaties to which Brazil is a party, which therefore received the status of directly applicable constitutional rights. 150. With respect to the prohibition of torture, this article provides that “(a)ll persons are equal before the law, without any distinction whatsoever, and the inviolability of the right to life, liberty, equality, security and property of Brazilians and foreigners residing in the country is ensured, according to the following terms: ... III - no one shall be submitted to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment”. Article 5 (XLIII) of the Constitution stipulates that, like other heinous crimes, the practice of torture is not subject to bail, mercy or amnesty, and that superiors, accomplices and persons who are able to prevent such a crime but do not do so, even by omission, must be held liable for the crime. Article 5 (XLVI) (e) prohibits “cruel” punishment and article 5 (XLIX) provides that “convicts shall be ensured of respect for their physical and moral integrity. Similarly, article 40 of the LEP provides that “(a)ll authorities are obliged to respect the physical and mental integrity of convicts and temporary prisoners” and article 45 prohibits punishment which violates “the physical and moral integrity of the convict” (para. 1) and collective punishment (para. 3) and the use of dark cells (para. 2). Finally, article 5 of the ECA stipulates that “[n]o child or adolescent shall be subject to any form of negligence, discrimination, exploitation, violence, cruelty and oppression, and any violation of their fundamental rights, either by act or omission, will be punished according to the terms of the Law”.