A/HRC/13/39/Add.5 of the allegations received as well as of the explanations of detainees’ traumata provided by authorities. In an impressing high number of cases, it was possible for a medical layperson to conclusively demonstrate that the officials’ account was incompatible with the victim’s injuries. In some cases, it was even possible to establish that a specific instrument, for example a wooden stick in the office of a warden, was used for the abuse since the injuries matched the instrument’s shape and form. This ability to secure evidence and ultimately use it in criminal proceedings is a crucial empowerment for the victims and the overall strive to fight impunity. 126. In addition to its evidence-establishing role for purposes of prosecution, forensic medicine can also potentially play a transforming role in terms of prevention. As already requested in the Body of Principles and later further expanded in the standard-setting Istanbul Protocol, routine forensic medical examinations of detainees after admission to every place of detention would create a system of “checkpoints” which would minimize the number of unaccounted cases of torture and render a shifting of blame and accountability among the various detention facilities and authorities impossible. 127. However, while much progress has undoubtedly been made in this field in the last few years, both in terms of medical standards and legal norm-setting, the impact of forensic medical science seems to be undermined by a lack of rigorous implementation, sufficient training and institutional dependencies. While almost all large detention facilities employ medical staff, they often lack the required expertise in order to conduct proper forensic examinations. In many cases, the physicians have an almost exclusively therapeutic role or only have a basic medical training as paramedics;71 their focus is on curing sick detainees and examining new arrivals for contagious diseases or obvious wounds. Since traumata caused by torture are not necessarily visible, their examinations are likely to miss a considerable number of torture cases. 128. When it comes to reporting traces of torture, physicians often find themselves caught in a conflict between their loyalty (and economic dependency) towards their employer and their actual professional obligation to report. Most of the medical staff is employed by the authority which is also in charge of holding detainees and whose officials are responsible for the ill-treatment. By raising cases of ill-treatment, medical staff may run the risk of jeopardizing their employment. In order to rectify such a lack of independence, doctors should be employed by the Ministry of Health and not by the Ministries tasked with holding detainees. 129. Examinations must be a routine practice after every transfer and every allegation or suspicion of torture. It is essential that the detainee meets the forensic expert in a setting which is free of any surveillance or pressure and that the examination takes place in full confidentiality. Unfortunately, this is almost never the case. During my mission to Georgia, for example, I was informed that transfers of detainees to non-resident medical experts were conducted by the police. Since a number of allegations concerned the police, this may raise possibilities for undue influence. In other cases, such as in Togo, detainees had to request the authorization for the examination from the prosecutor, who at the same time led the investigation against the suspected criminal and torture victim. Since the establishment of any torture could weaken their case, prosecutors may be tempted to disapprove any request for medical examinations. 130. Medical examinations completely miss their point if they are not carried out with a view to protect the victim and initiate proceedings to hold the perpetrators accountable. In Moldova and Indonesia, I was told that in some cases detainees were returned to the police 71 34 A/HRC/10/44/Add.3.