E/CN.4/2005/62/Add.2 page 38 that findings obtained in a manner not in accordance with the law cannot be admitted as evidence. 160. Recommendation (f) stated: Prosecutors and judges should diligently investigate all allegations of torture made by detainees. In the case of prosecutors in the State Security Courts, allegations should also be referred to the public prosecutor for criminal investigation. The investigation of the allegations should be conducted by the prosecutor himself or herself and the necessary staff should be provided for this purpose. 161. According to the information received from non-governmental sources, diligent investigation of all allegations of torture by prosecutors and judges does not occur systematically For ecample, on 12 April 2004, Ankara students alleged that they had been beaten by police and arrested during an unofficial but non-violent demonstration against a planned NATO summit. The judge allegedly ignored complaints of ill-treatment. In another case in the Police Headquarters in Pervari, Siirt, on 1 and 2 August 2004, the prosecutor issued, with unprecedented speed, a “decision not to open a prosecution” on 6 August 2004. 162. The Government reported that since State Security Courts were abolished (see para. 157), referral in recommendation (f) to the State Security Court prosecutors appears to be no longer valid. Steps taken in line with this recommendation are explained in detail in the following response. 163. Recommendation (g) stated: Prosecutors and the judiciary should speed up the trials and appeals of public officials indicted for torture or ill-treatment. Sentences should be commensurate with the gravity of the crime. The protection against prosecution afforded by the Law on the Prosecution of Public Servants should be removed. 164. According to the information received from non-governmental sources, court hearings for torture and ill-treatment cases are now held at a maximum of 30-day intervals and further efforts to speed up such trials are necessary. While the requirement of official permission for the prosecution of a civil servant or public employee accused of torture or ill-treatment has been lifted, official permission is still needed for the prosecution of civil servants or public employees suspected of having committed other crimes (such as extrajudicial executions). The new article of the Penal Code (see E/CN.4/2004/56/Add.3, para. 250) is of concern because of the wide remit of activities construed as “preventing convicts and detainees from taking nourishment” and the possibility that such an article may be used to curtail non-violent freedom of expression. 165. The Government reported that the Turkish Penal Code, which was enacted in 1926, has been changed in its entirety. During the preparation of the new Code, legislative review was conducted by the Council of Europe, and views and recommendations of various circles in Turkey, including academics, NGOs and bar associations, were taken on board. The new Penal Code, which was adopted by Parliament on 26 September 2004, stipulates that perpetrators of torture shall be sentenced to 3-12 years’ imprisonment. Should the act of torture be committed in the form of sexual harrasment, the perpetrator shall be sentenced to 10-15 years’ imprisonment. The Government drew attention to information previously provided (E/CN.4/2004/56/Add.3, para. 248) that as of January 2003 prior administrative authorization is no longer required to prosecute public officials on charges of torture and ill-treatment. Therefore, the relevant part of recommendation (g) is met. Furthermore, sentences imposed under articles 243 (torture) and 245