E/CN.4/1996/35/Add.2 page 18 that the Carabineros and the Police Department respectively do not always comply with the requirements of the law, while the use of ill-treatment against detainees was recognized by 85 and 95 per cent of those questioned respectively. In 77 and 68 per cent of cases the judges considered the ill-treatment to be light. 16/ The same survey sought to identify the importance attached by judges to extrajudicial confessions, and concluded that 40 per cent of such confessions were deemed reliable in the case of Carabineros and 35 per cent in that of the Police Department. In contrast, judges deemed that 25 per cent of confessions were unreliable in the case of Carabineros and 20 per cent in that of the Police Department. Consequently it may be concluded that there is no consensus among judges on this point. 62. According to non-governmental sources, when abuses are committed by Carabineros it is normally the military courts that assume jurisdiction, on account of the excessively broad interpretation of the concept of an "act committed in the course of duty" ("acto de servicio"). 63. The President of the Military Appeal Court told the Special Rapporteur that he was not aware of cases in which the value of statements by the accused or witnesses had been impaired because they had been obtained under duress. In reply to a question from the Special Rapporteur as to whether he was aware of cases in which members of Carabineros had been punished for such acts, the President said that he had recently convicted two Carabineros for rape, and that no small number of penalties were handed down for "unnecessary violence". 64. Finally, in its second periodic report to the Committee against Torture, the Government reported that between March 1990 and October 1993 some 50 complaints were lodged with the country’s civil and military courts for alleged ill-treatment of prisoners at the hands of the police, most of which were still pending. 17/ 65. However, not all judges take the same approach. In a sentence handed down by the Santiago Court of Appeal on 4 October 1994, in which the case against all those convicted by the Court of First Instance was dismissed, the count found that in their statements to the examining magistrates, two of the accused, Patricio Fernando Ortiz Montenegro and Rodrigo Morales Salas, had denied they belonged to any militia or armed group, and had added that they had made their statement to the military prosecutor because they had been tortured. Their injuries, which gave rise to a complaint whose outcome was not recorded by the Court, are on record in the file. The Court thus rejected the statements obtained under torture, on the basis of the provisions of article 14.3 (g) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 8.2 (g) of the Pact of San José, Costa Rica and article 15 of the Convention against Torture. Moreover, in the case of Ortiz Montenegro, the Court added that the detainee’s statement failed to satisfy the first requirement laid down by article 481 of the Code of Penal Procedure regarding admissibility, "besides which the procedurally improper and inappropriate manner in which it was obtained prevent it from even being considered as an item of evidence or a presumption under article 484, paragraph 1". However, non-governmental sources said that such judgements were exceptional.