A/68/44 Application of the Istanbul Protocol in investigations of torture and ill-treatment (17) The Committee applauds the State party’s efforts to increase the training it provides regarding the Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the Istanbul Protocol) and to expand the scope of its practical application by having the Office of the Attorney General of Mexico and a number of the offices of attorneys general at the state level prepare medical/psychological reports. However, it notes with concern that the application of the Protocol is still infrequent and in many cases is the exception to the rule. While taking note of the State party’s intention to enhance the technical autonomy of official medical experts by establishing a forensic medical service within the Attorney General’s Office, the Committee remains concerned by information which indicates that official experts frequently fail to mention or attach little importance to physical and psychological signs of torture or ill-treatment in their reports. The Committee is also concerned by reports that members of security forces have been present during medical examinations (arts. 12 and 13). The State party should adopt all measures necessary to ensure that all persons taken into custody undergo thorough, impartial medical examinations. In order to ensure the quality and accuracy of forensic evaluations, the State party should: (a) Ensure that examinations are conducted in such a way as to uphold the principles of confidentiality and privacy; (b) Ensure that medical experts use forms that are in line with annex IV of the Istanbul Protocol when preparing their evaluations and that they include their interpretation of their findings; (c) Set up a system that permits official medical experts to anonymously request that a more thorough medical examination be performed; (d) Adopt the legislative amendments required in order to accord full evidentiary value to the reports of independent medical experts so as to place them on an equal footing with the reports of official experts designated by attorneys generals’ offices; (e) Ensure that all persons who are arrested and ask to be examined by an independent physician or an official expert receive copies of their request and the medical report or expert opinion (see the Istanbul Protocol, annex I, paragraph 6 (c)). Reform of the military justice system (18) The Committee takes note of the information provided by the State party regarding the judgement handed down by the Supreme Court on 21 August 2012 in the case of Bonfilio Rubio Villegas, in which it declares, in line with the jurisprudence established by four judgements of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, that a portion of article 57 of the Code of Military Justice is unconstitutional, thereby establishing that the ordinary courts have sole jurisdiction over cases involving the alleged violation of human rights by military personnel. The Committee regrets that the proposed amendment of the Code of Military Justice has not yet been passed. In addition, while taking note of the fact that military courts have ceded jurisdiction to civilian courts in respect of 231 preliminary investigations and 66 criminal cases, the Committee is troubled by the fact that, between 2007 and June 2011, the Office of the Military Attorney General opened 3,671 investigations into cases involving violations of civilians’ human rights, with a total of 15 soldiers being convicted of such violations (art. 2, para. 1). In line with its earlier recommendations in this regard, the Committee urges the State party to amend its Code of Military Justice, in accordance with the judgements 28 GE.13-46043