E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.2 page 77 detention of the Ministry of Internal or National Security Service were treated. If official complaints about acts of torture or cruel treatment are filed, judges regularly accuse the complainants of attempting to avoid the punishment and refer to this in the sentence. 365. The Government informed that the information provided by NGOs is wrong. In accordance with measures for guaranteeing control of the actions of law-enforcement staff, an instruction for the staff of the Prosecutor’s Office was elaborated, detailing the application of article 243 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It provides that prosecutors personally ask suspected and accused persons about the treatment that they received in custody. Consequently, now all interrogations of minors and women suspected or accused of having committed a crime, are conducted personally by the prosecutor. The establishment is foreseen of a centralised register of complaints for analytical purposes, and to be used as a basis for management decisions. Point 19 of the Supreme Court’s Resolution No. 17 of 2003 provides that “the interrogator, investigator, prosecutor, and judge is obliged to always ask persons brought from places of detention about their treatment during interrogation and investigation and about conditions of detention. In reaction to every complaint about torture or other illegal methods of interrogation, a thorough investigation of the allegations has to be conducted, including through medical expertise, as a result of which procedural measures or other steps have to be taken, in some cases a criminal case against officials has to be filed.” At the moment a draft law “On Detention of Persons Suspected and Accused of Having Committed a Crime” is under consideration, which elaborates the legal status of those persons, their rights and duties, the regime and conditions of pre-trial detention, and the system of monitoring the rights and freedoms of pre-trial detainees, including by the public. 366. Recommendation (j) stated: All measures should be taken to ensure in practice absolute respect for the principle of inadmissibility of evidence obtained by torture in accordance with international standards and the May 1997 Supreme Court resolution. 367. According to NGOs, the situation has not changed, judges continue to accuse defendants, who allege that they have been tortured, of attempting to avoid punishment and refer to this in the sentence. Courts are strongly influenced by the executive, primarily because of the appointment and dismissal system for judges. Despite the Resolution of the Supreme Court on the interpretation of article 235 of the Criminal Code in accordance with the article 1 of the Convention against Torture, courts continue to accept evidence obtained under torture. To resolve this issue, it would be necessary to adopt a set of complex measures ensuring the independence of the judiciary and to amend article 235 of the Criminal Code. Despite this resolution, the Criminal Code remains the “handbook” for law enforcement staff. 368. The Government informed that Point 19 of Resolution No. 17 of the Supreme Court of 19 December 2003, establishes that evidence obtained under torture, with the use of violence, threats, deception, any other cruel or degrading treatment or other illegal measures, and violating the rights of a person to legal aid, cannot form the basis of an accusation. Similarly, Point 3 of Resolution No. 12 of 24 September 2004 of the plenary of the Supreme Court “On Some Questions Related to the Norms of the Criminal Procedure Legislation about the Permissibility of Proofs”, provides, that evidence, including confessions, obtained under torture, violence and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and through deception and other illegal methods, are not permissible.