E/CN.4/2004/56/Add.3 page 11 the investigation and any subsequent legal or disciplinary proceedings. Where a specific allegation or a pattern of acts of torture or similar ill-treatment is demonstrated, the personnel involved, including those in charge of the institution, should be peremptorily dismissed. This will involve radical purging of some services. A start could be made by purging known torturers from the period of the military Government. 50. According to the information received, the organs responsible for investigating allegations of torture are mainly controlled by the very institutions that are involved in its perpetration. In addition, the lack of budgetary autonomy of the ombudsmen allegedly hinders their ability to carry out their work in an autonomous and objective manner. 51. The Special Rapporteur has also been informed that no effective measures have been taken to suspend from duty the law enforcement officers against whom a torture complaint has been filed. In some cases, they have reportedly been transferred but not dismissed. 52. The Special Rapporteur has further been informed that some individuals who were involved in torture cases during the military dictatorship continue to hold public offices and have even received recognition and promotion. 53. Recommendation (k) stated: All states should implement witness protection programmes along the lines established by the PROVITA programme for witnesses to incidents of violence by public officials, which ought to extend fully to cover persons with a previous criminal record. In cases where current inmates are at risk, they ought to be transferred to another detention facility where special measures for their security should be taken. 54. According to the information received, people with criminal records are still not under the protection of PROVITA, despite the lack of legal restrictions that would impede such protection being extended to them. Under the current practice inmates at risk should be transferred to special cells. Nevertheless, due to the frequency of uprisings and the alleged lack of control over the penitentiary system, such transfer allegedly does not guarantee the physical integrity of the inmates, who end up being victimized by other prisoners, or even by prison officials. 55. Recommendation (l) stated: Prosecutors should bring charges under the 1997 law against torture with the frequency dictated by the scope and gravity of the problem and request that judges enforce the law’s provisions prohibiting bail of those charged. Attorneys-General, with the material support of gubernatorial and other relevant state authorities, should assign sufficient qualified and committed prosecutorial resources for the criminal investigation of torture and similar ill-treatment and for any appellate proceedings. In principle, the prosecutors in question should not be the same as those responsible for prosecuting ordinary criminality. 56. According to the information received, all of the cases involving torture in Brazil continue to be pending at the appellate stage. It is reported that those who have been convicted remain at liberty during the appeal procedure. It is also reported that in some states, including