NATIONAL REPORT 2016 Torture and ill-treatment in Bolivia get information and/or a confession. The most frequent cases happen when persons are held in detention. In his 2015 report, the Office of the Ombudsman noted that the most frequent complaints of human rights violations came against the police, the municipal authorities of El Alto and the judiciary.7 Torture and ill-treatment continues to be used as a means of conducting investigations and as a form of intimidation against civil society by the police and armed forces in Bolivia. There is no state policy for the eradication of torture and no state official has been convicted for committing torture. The fight against torture fails most frequently in the areas of prevention and access to justice, which results in a climate of impunity. The police or the specialised crime task force (Fuerza Especial Contra el Crimen – FELCC) often violently crackdown on civil society or social movements when they organise protests against the government. This repression is carried out in order to intimidate civil society and to break their will to carry on with protests. Indeed, even ITEI’s Director, Emma B Bravo, has been threatened as a reprisal for her work to end torture in the country. The Bolivian Constitution prohibits all forms of torture, enforced disappearances, confinement, coercion or any form of physical or emotional violence. Although the Penal Code punishes torture, the code comes from the period of dictatorship and is not compliant with the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT). This law punishes torture with minimum penalties and to date no public official has been found guilty under it. Indeed, in its concluding observations from 2013, the Committee against Torture noted that Bolivia has not established a definition of the crime of torture that is in conformity with the Convention.6 “Grave acts of violence reflect a level of generalised violence in the army and the Bolivian police.” — The Ombudsman Within the military, cases of torture and ill-treatment often happen through a system of punishment and intimidation to get submission and obedience. For example, in February 2011 Second Lieutenant Grover Poma was beaten and killed for refusing to fight another officer.8 In general, among the police and the military, as well as in the society (for instance in cases of lynching in community policing), there is a pervasive notion that torture and ill-treatment have an educative or corrective function to ensure the person does not repeat undesired behaviour. As an example, the Ombudsman observed this year at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in Washington DC that these “grave acts of violence reflect a level of generalised violence in the army and the Bolivian police.” Torture and ill-treatment disproportionately affects people of low socioeconomic status as well as members of opposition social and political movements. In the army people of indigenous origin are often victims of acts of racism. Geographically, central cities like La Paz, Cochabamba and Santa Cruz are more affected by torture than others. The most frequent perpetrators of torture and ill-treatment are members of the police and security forces. This happens with the permission of the district attorneys, under the concealment of the judges and governmental bodies. These acts have an extractive function: in order to page 6