PART 2: Procedures of the Human Rights Commitee and the Committee against Torture xiii. Letter from Mr. L to the Chief Prosecutor requesting a copy of a transcript of the interview between Mr. T and the author, dated 17 March 2004. (Annex 36) (see below, paragraph 22) xiv. Letter of discontinuance from the Office of the Chief Prosecutor informing the author of the Chief Prosecutor’s decision to drop the investigations, dated 17 April 2005 (Annex 37) xv. Letter from Mr. L to the Chief Prosecutor outlining the inadequacies and delays of the investigation and formally requesting a reopening of the investigation, dated 19 April 2005 (Annex 38) xvi. Letter from Mr. L to the Chief Prosecutor outlining the inadequacies and delays of the investigation and formally requesting a reopening of the investigation, dated 23 June 2005 (Annex 39) xvii. Letter from the Office of the Chief Prosecutor stating its refusal to reopen the investigation, dated 1 August 2005 (Annex 40) 22. The Chief Prosecutor initiated contact on only two occasions. The first occasion was to organize an interview with the author on 15 March 2004 (see Annex 35). At this interview, Mr T, a ‘senior investigator’ within the Chief Prosecutor’s Office, interviewed the author for only ten minutes, and did not query any aspects of his assertions regarding ill-treatment. No transcript of that interview has ever been presented to the author or Mr L, despite requests for such a transcript. 23. The second instance of contact initiated by the Chief Prosecutor occurred on 17 April 2005 when Mr L and the author were informed of the decision to discontinue the investigations for lack of evidence (see annex 37). The Chief Prosecutor’s letter explained that the following evidence indicated that the author’s claims were ill-founded: evidence from Messrs P and Q, police at City Police Station, and the report of the prison doctor dated 27 September 2002 (see Annex 11). The Chief Prosecutor explained that note had been taken of the documentary evidence submitted on behalf of the author, such as the medical and psychiatric reports of Dr H, Dr J, and Dr K. However, the Chief Prosecutor said that such reports were highly contentious, and that there was nothing to prove that the author had not been assaulted by other prisoners, ‘if indeed [he] had been assaulted at all’. Therefore, the Chief Prosecutor inferred that the author had either never been subjected to ill-treatment, or that any such ill-treatment had most likely been perpetrated by other prisoners at City Prison. 24. Mr L followed up this letter of discontinuance with two further communications, pointing out the inadequacies and delays in the investigation, and both formally requesting a reopening of the investigation (see Annexes 38 and 39). The Chief Prosecutor’s Office responded with an apparent ‘form’ letter to the second of these communications, stating that no such reopening would occur (see Annex 40). No response was received to the first letter. 25. The author submits that the Chief Prosecutor’s investigation was grossly inadequate. In particular, none of the witnesses to the author’s arrest, nor Dr H, nor either of the psychiatrists, Dr J or Dr K, were contacted by the Chief Prosecutor. Neither Mr L nor any member of the author’s family was interviewed. Furthermore, the assertion that any ill-treatment could have been perpetrated by other prisons was never put to the author by Mr T. Indeed, when the author was interviewed, Mr T listened passively to his account and never challenged any aspect of it. The only other witnesses that were personally interviewed by the Chief Prosecutor’s office were those who were likely to favor the State (and themselves), such as Messrs P and Q, the police officers at City Police Station, the prison doctor and the prison governor. It is therefore submitted that the investigation was not impartial. 113