A/HRC/13/39/Add.5 revision of amnesty laws, the establishment of independent investigation units, or the promotion of the observance of codes of conduct for law enforcement officials. 2. Obstacles to the right to a remedy and adequate reparation in practice 174. In practically all countries visited by the Special Rapporteur, the right to remedy and adequate reparation of victims of torture was either non-existent or severely limited, and adequate reparation was almost never provided in practice. In some countries, laws guaranteeing the provision of reparation to victims of torture did not exist at all,115 while in others, compensation for acts of torture were instituted as an alternative for criminal sanctions, which has contributed to a culture of impunity.116 In other countries, the payment of damages was foreseen for unlawful sentencing, arrest and detention, but no reference to torture and ill-treatment was contained in the law, thereby failing to provide reparation commensurate with the gravity of the pain, suffering and humiliation inflicted by torture.117 In addition, a common problem was that victims and relatives of victims often did not enjoy legal standing in relation to allegations of torture and were therefore prevented from claiming reparation. Even where legal provisions on the right to a remedy and reparation for torture cases existed, victims of torture were often not aware of their rights or lacked the financial and other capacities to exercise their rights in practice and effectively access the justice system. 175. In my experience, the prevalence of impunity is the most common obstacle to the realisation of the right to a remedy and adequate reparation of torture victims. I am particularly concerned about laws and other measures that limit the legal responsibility of State officials for torture and other forms of ill-treatment of detainees, such as regulations on indemnities for police officers or the granting of amnesties. The criminalisation of acts of torture and the revision of amnesty laws to lift the shield of immunity are therefore also central preconditions for the realisation of the victims’ right to reparation. Furthermore, I have frequently noted that the general mal-functioning of the administration of justice, including various procedural and substantive shortcomings and barriers regularly prevent the provision of adequate reparation to victims of torture. I am particularly concerned that in places where survivors of torture are silenced out of fear of further repression, or are denied from access to justice due to the lack of willingness on the part of the authorities to effectively investigate allegations of torture, victims enter a cycle of re-victimisation and despair. 176. Among the procedural obstacles to reparation faced by victims of torture and their relatives is the fact that in a number of countries, the burden of proof is placed on the victim, who often lacks the means to produce the necessary forensic, medical and other evidence required by the high standards of proof in criminal proceedings, thereby often impeding effective investigations and establishment of the facts from the start. Proper investigations are also often pre-empted due to restrictive statutes of limitations for complaining about acts of torture and instituting proceedings for compensation. In addition, access to fair and adequate reparation is rendered complicated in a number of countries, where the award of reparation for torture depends on the outcome of criminal proceedings. In these countries, the lack of willingness and capacity on the part of the prosecution to conduct prompt, thorough and effective investigations securing all relevant evidence can result in an altogether frustrating the pursuit of reparation claims by the victims. A related problem I encountered was that victims and their relatives were often not informed of the status of the official inquiry into their case, which also prevented them from instigating 115 116 117 46 A/HRC/7/3/Add.7. E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.5. E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.4.