normative act is amended to the effect that the Office of the Chief Prosecutor of Georgia is in charge of investigation of alleged torture, inhuman or degrading treatment of inmates. Under Article 2.2 of the abovementioned procedure, a health-care professional should obtain a patient’s informed consent before medical screening. Article 2.5 stipulates that a patient’s objection to medical screening should be confirmed by his/her signature. In those cases, where a patient objects, medical screening should not be done. It should be pointed out in this context that inmates of penitentiary establishments are a vulnerable group, especially when they are subjected to ill-treatment. In the existing conditions, the victims of alleged ill-treatment lack adequate statutory and administrative legal safeguards, which would decrease the risks of repression in case of filing a complaint. Therefore, the above-mentioned provisions contains a risk that in those cases, where a victim of alleged ill-treatment does not feel protected and does not have the expectation that those who violated his/her rights will be adequately punished, he/she might be reluctant to notify investigative authorities. Under the Istanbul Protocol, prison doctors are the primarily providers of medical treatment but they also have the task of examining detainees arriving in prison from police custody. In this role or in treating people within a prison, they may discover evidence of unacceptable violence which prisoners themselves are not in a realistic position to denounce. In such situations, doctors must bear in mind the best interests of the patient and their duties of confidentiality to that person, and the moral arguments for the doctor to denounce evident maltreatment are strong, since prisoners themselves are often unable to do so effectively. Where prisoners agree to disclose, conflict does not arise and the moral obligation is clear. If a prisoner refuses to allow disclosure, doctors must weigh the risk and potential danger to that individual patient against the benefits to the general prison population and the interests of society in eliminating the practice of ill-treatment.36 Therefore, the Public Defender stresses that, irrespective of an inmate’s consent, the decision about notifying investigative authorities should be taken by a health-care professional with the due consideration of interests of the inmate and the public. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that the issues related to independence and qualifications of medical personnel remain problematic in 2016. According to the findings of the monitoring conducted by the Special Preventive Group, there is certain dependence of the medical personnel on the prison administration. This raises misgivings regarding the impartiality of health-care professionals when dealing with the alleged ill-treatment of inmates, when they are obliged to register injuries and notify investigative authorities. The Public Defender deems it necessary that the Ministry of Corrections of Georgia should take appropriate measures for ensuring adequate independence of medical personnel. In the context of professional independence of medical personnel, the transfer of prison health care to the Ministry of Health, Labour and Social Affairs of Georgia is important.37 36 37 The Istanbul Protocol, para. 72. The importance of the issue is also stressed by the CPT in its report on the visit to Georgia. The CPT is of the view that the transfer of prison health care to the Ministry of Labour, Health and Social Affairs would certainly help increase the professional independence of prison health-care staff. NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM (NPM), 2016 29