A/HRC/7/3/Add.2 page 139 Security Court facilities. Medical certificates should never be handed to the police or to the detainee while in the hands of the police, but should be made available to the detainee once out of their hands and to his or her lawyer immediately. 692. According to non-governmental sources, the Forensic Medicine Institution lacks independence since it is affiliated to the Ministry of Justice. It would be desirable for the institution to be independent of the executive. Lawyers have reported that the expert reports of specialist departments of the Forensic Medicine Institution are extremely slow in coming and that trials may be seriously delayed as a result of this. The presence of law enforcement officials during medical examinations remains a common practice and medical examinations often remain inadequate and superficial. Courts rarely regard independent medical reports as admissible. 693. The Government, in addition to previously reported information (e.g. A/HRC/4/33/Add.2, para. 6223-626), stressed that with the adoption of the Law on the Forensic Medicine Institution (No. 2659) on 14 April 1983, the former Law No. 2659 of 11 July 1953, was repealed and the Forensic Medicine Institution was established in order to render expert witness services in judicial matters, to organize symposiums, conferences as well as education programs on forensic issues that fall within its mandate. It is affiliated to the Ministry of Justice. Forensic Medicine Institutions in many developed countries have similar organizational structures. Contrary to claims by NGOs, the independence and objectivity of the Forensic Medicine Institution in Turkey have been confirmed by the European Court of Human Rights in its judgments concerning the applications of Aslıhan Gençay vs Turkey No. 10057/04, Kuruçay vs Turkey No. 24040/04 and Sinan Eren vs Turkey No. 8062/04. 694. Recommendation (e) stated: Prosecutors and judges should not require conclusive proof of physical torture or ill-treatment (much less final conviction of an accused perpetrator) before deciding not to rely as against the detainee on confessions or information alleged to have been obtained by such treatment; indeed, the burden of proof should be on the State to demonstrate the absence of coercion. Moreover, this should also apply in respect of proceedings against alleged perpetrators of torture or ill-treatment, as long as the periods of custody do not conform to the criteria indicated in (a) and (b) above. 695. In addition to information previously reported (e.g. A/HRC/4/33/Add.2, paras. 629-630), the Government informed that this issue is being addressed in the training activities of the law enforcement agencies and that due diligence is being exercised in practice. 696. Recommendation (f) stated: Prosecutors and judges should diligently investigate all allegations of torture made by detainees. In the case of prosecutors in the State Security Courts, allegations should also be referred to the public prosecutor for criminal investigation. The investigation of the allegations should be conducted by the prosecutor himself or herself and the necessary staff should be provided for this purpose.