E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.3 page 22 them were allegedly tortured by the police to obtain confessions. If it were true, as he claimed, that the third individual was compelled to confess by being forced to watch the torture of Gia Lobzhanidze and Valeri Kurtanidze, it would not have been necessary for him to enter a plea to the charges against him, which he in fact did (i.e. he pleaded guilty to weapons offences but not burglary). During joint examinations of the defendants, the testimony of Gia Lobzhanidze and Valeri Kurtanidze was tentative. Except for one policeman, they hesitated to directly implicate the policemen seated before them. The policemen denied the allegations. The employees of the isolator who were on duty during the period 22-24 April 2004 were questioned and also denied the allegations. The allegations of ill-treatment in the prison were not supported by the prison’s director and doctor. On 27 July 2004, forensic examinations were conducted and the report concluded that the bruises on the tongue of Gia Lobzhanidze were not such to seriously affect his health, and that there were no visible bruises on Valeri Kurtanidze. Similarly, the report of the defendants’ forensic expert concludes that the injuries of the two men were minor and not so serious as to affect their health. According to the expert: the bruises on the hand of Valeri Kurtanidze seemed to have been caused by a solid blunt object; the injury in the area of his ear might have been caused by electricity; and no trace of electric shock was found on the body of Gia Lobzhanidze. Given that the examinations by the defendants’ expert began five days after their arrest, had the allegations been fact, the cause and time of any injuries should have been easy to identify. In view of the foregoing, the investigation established that the necessary elements to initiate criminal action into the alleged ill-treatment were absent, and a decree was issued to that effect on 8 August 2004. It was not appealed by Gia Lobzhanidze or Valeri Kurtanidze but the Investigative Division of the Procuracy reversed the decree and initiated an investigation on 31 May 2005. On 10 June, charges under articles 333 (3) (b) and 335 (2) (a) and (b) were brought against the Head of the Criminal Investigative Subdivision of the Tbilisi Didube-Chughureti Unit of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and five other policemen of the Subdivision. The Tbilisi City Court was requested to suspend them from duty and to impose a written undertaking from them not to leave the area while the proceedings were pending. 7. Sulkhan Molashvili, aged 35, former Chairman of the Chamber of Control. On 22 April 2004, he was summoned to the Tbilisi Office of the Public Prosecutor, where he was confronted with charges relating to corruption by an investigator of the Public Prosecutor’s Office. On 23 April, on the order of the Vake-Saburtalo District Court, Sulkhan Molashvili was detained for a period of three months’ pretrial detention at the Tbilisi Head Department of Internal Affairs. Approximately 30 minutes after he was first brought to the basement cell of the station, he was blindfolded and taken by three or four uniformed men to a sixth floor office. He was seated on a chair with his hands handcuffed behind his back. The interrogators insisted that he confess to the charges. According to his medical history, he suffers from ischaemic heart disease, stenocardia, arterial hypertension, calculous cholecystitis and varicose veins. When he refused to confess, electric shocks were applied to his wrists and ankles, and his legs were beaten. His sweater was pulled up over his head and he was repeatedly burned with cigarettes. He was warned that if he revealed that he had been tortured his wife and children would be harmed. The same day he was moved to Prison No. 1 and then to the Prison Hospital. On 4 June, he was moved back to Prison No. 1, despite a deterioration of his health, including chest pains, a gall bladder attack and a diagnosis of depression. He reportedly did not reveal that