A/HRC/13/39/Add.5 corroborate this account and indicated the infliction of force as the most likely explanation.67 119. An even more glaring example refers to my mission to Indonesia, where I found a young man with severe swellings and injuries on his face and upper body sitting in an office and giving a statement to one of the interrogators. The person reported to be only a visitor; a claim which was hardly convincing since he was handcuffed to the chair.68 120. The forms of reprisals are as manifold as the methods of torture and CIDT. In some cases detainees are verbally threatened, including threats against their family members who are outside of detention. Physical abuse in reaction to complaints is in most cases particularly severe since its perpetrators are driven by personal revenge and are used not only to punish those who dared to complain, but also to intimidate others. With this in mind, reprisals often take place within ear and eyeshot of other detainees, so that they know what to expect in case they complained. 121. A frequent explanation I received for pre-trial detainees’ reluctance to complain about their treatment is the fear that any objections will negatively influence the result of their trial. Raising a torture allegation or other human rights violations will be interpreted as being “uncooperative” and may result in longer prison sentences. 122. In general, I conclude that most complaints mechanisms are marred by an “impenetrable wall of conflicting interests” and lack of independence. Those who torture are closely linked with those who receive complaints and are tasked to follow up on them. In such a context, it seems only too reasonable to abstain from voicing discontent. This situation becomes further reflected in the fact that in general, I receive many more complaints about torture in police custody by detainees who are either already in pre-trial detention, and rely on the fact that they will not be transferred back to the police station, or convicted detainees. These individuals are beyond the reach of the police and have nothing to lose. (c) Lack of forensic examinations 123. One of the major challenges when it comes to proving cases of torture and CIDT is the establishment of evidence. Since such abuses are mainly inflicted behind closed doors, victims very often have to fight an uphill struggle to make their cases heard and have their complaints properly investigated. This is particularly true for persons who are accused of having committed a crime and carry a stigma of being not credible.69 124. Forensic medical science is a crucial tool in alleviating this burden. Experts can evaluate to which degree medical findings correlate with the allegations brought forward and forensic medical science therefore plays an important role in providing the evidentiary basis on which prosecutions can successfully be brought against those responsible.70 Forensic medical science can demonstrate that diagnosed injuries or behaviour patterns of the victim are consistent with the abuse described. Furthermore, modern medical examinations enable the detection of injuries which are otherwise not visible, such as soft tissue or nerve trauma - an important ability in light of the ever increasing sophistication of torture methods. 125. In order to use the abilities of this science, I was accompanied by forensic experts on almost all fact-finding missions. Their expertise allowed me to arrive at better qualifications 67 68 69 70 A/HRC/7/3/Add.3, Appendix I, para 29. A/HRC/7/3/Add.7, Appendix I, para 141–146. See also A/62/221, para 50. See also E/CN.4/RES/2005/26. 33