facilities and social care homes. Exclusively targeting groups or activities within the criminal justice system may, therefore, lead to the neglect of other priority areas. Another observation was that, as the OSCE is frequently already engaged in activities on criminal justice reform, there is a natural complementarity in integrating antitorture aspects. One of the reasons an integrated approach has been advocated by ODIHR as more effective is that, as mentioned above, it might decrease the stigma a country may attach to the acknowledgement of the existence of torture. Thus, the debate can be steered away from a potentially confrontational discussion in which a state might react by defending or denying bad practices, to focus instead on more practical changes to the system that should have the “side effect” of decreasing torture or illtreatment. Discussion can also be couched in terms to which legal professionals, who are frequently the target group, can relate. For example, judges and prosecutors can be trained in the importance of evaluating the probative value of the available evidence in its entirety, while stressing the risks of relying on confessions alone. Likewise, if confessions are not to be the main or sole form of evidence, police, prosecutors and judges need to be trained in and given the resources for effective investigation techniques – the use of forensic science in particular. However, some respondents noted that the integration of anti-torture aspects into criminal justice reform activities, while appropriate for some projects and some activity areas, might not always be the best approach. It was, however, stressed by respondents that any work on penal reform should include an anti-torture component. An evaluation of the type of project, its target group and relations with relevant national partners were highlighted as matters that need to be considered when deciding if it is appropriate to include anti-torture elements in a particular activity. Overall, activities were noticeably limited in countries where the government would not acknowledge the existence of torture, and there also seemed to be a limited presence or involvement on the part national or international organizations. It is worth considering what further strategies can be used in such countries to encourage the authorities to address this problem. Perhaps not surprisingly, it seems that in countries where anti-torture work is perceived as difficult, resources are often directed to activities where the most progress is thought to be achievable. Many of the countries that are more difficult to work in are also those with worse records of human rights abuses in general, and torture in particular (as documented by international human rights organizations, reports by treaty monitoring bodies, etc.). Therefore, it could be argued that they are also deserving of greater attention. In conclusion, it can be noted that while mainstreaming or integrating torture prevention may often be effective for the reasons mentioned above, this approach should not be taken as strict dogma. A tailored approach dealing with specific “in-country” issues is likely to be the most effective. 26