E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.2 page 8 33. According to information received from NGOs, the criminal justice system is still highly flawed which has facilitated the continued practice of torture and the impunity of those who perpetrate it. Today it is still largely the case that the bodies responsible for investigating and reporting acts of torture, including internal police investigation units [corregedorias], forensic medical units [institutos médicos legais], the public prosecutors office [ministerio público], and the judiciary have largely failed to carry out investigations either due to lack of resources, negligence or complicity. Certain dedicated public prosecutors have proven to be notable exceptions to this rule, as are those working in the human rights department in the state of Minas Gerais, and those prosecutors responsible for monitoring São Paulo’s juvenile detention system, the Foundation for the Well-Being of Minors, or Fundação Estadual do Bem Estar do Menor (FEBEM), where systematic work has contributed to increased prosecutions, though often in the face of institutional pressures. States which have police ombudsmen’s offices have to some extent managed to document the extent of torture. Given the limited powers bestowed to the offices, especially the lack of investigative powers and the lack of any real independence both financial and institutional, they have also failed to reduce incidences of torture. Consequently, visits to places where torture is thought to occur and the reporting of cases is often limited to those civil society groups able to obtain access. 34. 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. 35. 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. 36. According to information received from NGOs, despite the introduction of the 1997 law against torture, only a few prosecutions have been brought in comparison to the number of allegations, and with only a handful resulting in convictions. A recent report (Análise do Cumprimento pelo Brasil das Recomendações do Comitê da ONU contra a Tortura, Programa dhInternacional, MNDH-NE & GAJOP, July 2005) cited figures showing that in the state of São Paulo, which has the highest prison population in the country, there had only been 12 convictions under the torture law between 1997 and 2004, most of these of private individuals. Information about prosecutions of state agents for torture, as well as other human rights violations, is difficult to obtain, as much of the information about such cases is held “in camera”. This is a serious impediment to the right of victims to a fair trial. Since the torture law also applies to private persons, prosecutions are more likely to be brought against private individuals than state employees. Consequently, of the limited data available on prosecutions, there is no differentiation between prosecutions against state actors and private individuals, limiting its value. Impunity continues to be the norm. In an opinion poll conducted in February 2004 by