A/HRC/22/53/Add.2 performed not by forensic medical experts but by medical clinicians included in the court lists of ―experts‖. These individuals do not have any specific training or competence in forensic medicine. The medical reports produced after allegations of torture and illtreatment are of very poor quality, not in accordance with the minimum international standards for clinical forensic assessment of victims and not acceptable as forensic evidence. Neither prison health-care staff nor the clinicians who act as court ―experts‖ have specific training in assessing, interpreting and documenting torture and ill-treatment. 36. The Special Rapporteur notes that this may be one of the reasons for the nonapplication of the exclusionary rule with regard to evidence obtained under torture. Even in cases where a prosecutor or a judge orders a medical examination, the poor quality of medical and forensic reports currently provide little assistance to the prosecutors and judges in their decision-making process. The confession or declaration thus remains on the record and no serious effort is made to investigate, prosecute and punish perpetrators. 5. Monitoring and inspection of places of detention 37. Police stations are placed by law under the effective control of the General Prosecutor’s Office. The officers in charge of the police stations visited by the Special Rapporteur confirmed regular visits from the General Prosecutor’s Office. However, no statistics on the frequency of such visits were received. 38. Article 249 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that the President of the Criminal Chamber or his representative must visit penal institutions at least once every three months to take stock of the situation of prisoners in preventive detention and the justification for their detention, giving him the possibility to make direct recommendations to the examining judge in this regard. However, as noted in the CNDH report of October 2012, most facilities were not visited by the President of the Criminal Chamber in 2011. Also, the visits by the commissions set forth in articles 620 and 621 of the Code of Criminal Procedure take place only on an irregular basis. 39. Nevertheless, there is an increase in visits to places of detention. The founding law of CNDH specifically mandates it to visit places of detention and other places of deprivation of liberty to help improve conditions of detention. The access of CNDH to places of detention and the post-visit report, as well as the work to ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, are important steps towards establishing an effective monitoring mechanism in Morocco. However, under article 10 of the implementing decree for Act No. 23/98, non-governmental organizations have only a very limited scope of activities conditioned by the approval of the General Delegation of Prison Administration and Reintegration. This minimizes the ability of these associations to play a role in promoting a culture of human rights within the penal institutions and have their observations and recommendations considered regarding improvements to the prisoners’ regime, physical environment and reintegration. 6. Ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 40. When Morocco publicly announced its intention to ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture as a priority in March 2007, this was supported by CNDH and the national human rights organizations. On 1 and 12 November 2012 the Government Council and the Council of Ministers, respectively, approved the bill on accession to the Optional Protocol. The Special Rapporteur welcomes the Government’s assurances of speedy ratification of the Optional Protocol, but notes that the instrument of accession has not been deposited. 10