Independent police conduct authority (12) In spite of the assurances given by the State party, the Committee remains concerned that the impartiality of the Independent Police Conduct Authority might be hampered by the inclusion of both current and former police officers regarding impartial and effective investigations into alleged acts of torture and ill-treatment by members of the police, in accordance with the provisions of the Convention (art. 12). The State party should further strengthen the independence of the Independent Police Conduct Authority which should be staffed with independent experts drawn from outside the Police. (13) The Committee is concerned that the Independent Police Conduct Authority may decide not to take action on complaints, including on grounds of torture or ill-treatment, in circumstances where the complainant has had knowledge of the matters under complaint for more than 12 months before the complaint was made (art. 12). The State party should take all necessary legal and procedural measures to ensure that the crime of torture is not subject to the twelve months limitation, that allegations on grounds of torture are promptly and impartially investigated, alleged perpetrators duly prosecuted and punished if found guilty, and victims adequately compensated. Withdrawal of reservation to article 14 (14) The Committee is concerned that the State party has maintained its reservation to article 14 of the Convention, which is incompatible with the letter and spirit of the Convention, as well as with its obligation to ensure the rights of victims of torture to a fair and adequate compensation including the means for as full rehabilitation as possible. The Committee is also concerned that the Prisoners and Victims Claims Act 2005 limits the award and payment of compensation to prisoners (art. 14). The State party should consider withdrawing its reservation to article 14 of the Convention and ensure the provision of fair and adequate compensation through its civil jurisdiction to all victims of torture. Use of statements obtained as a result of torture (15) The Committee notes that the Evidence Act 2006 provides that if the defence raises in proceedings an issue as to whether a statement made by the defendant has been influenced by oppression, the Judge must exclude that statement unless the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the statement was not influenced by “oppression”. Furthermore, if evidence is obtained improperly, the admissibility of the statement is weighed against factors enumerated in the Act. The Committee is concerned that the Act does not fully incorporate article 15 of the Convention whereby the State party should ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made (art. 15). The State party should bring the existing legislation concerning evidence to be adduced in judicial proceedings into line with the provisions of article 15 of the Convention so as to exclude explicitly any evidence obtained as a result of torture. Use of taser weapons (16) While taking note of the assurances by the State party whereby tasers are only to be used by trained and certified staff and only when the officer has an honest belief that the subject is capable of carrying out the threat posed and that the use of the taser is warranted, the Committee is deeply concerned about the introduction of these weapons in the New Zealand police. The Committee is concerned that the use of these weapons causes severe pain constituting a form of torture, and that in some cases it may even cause death. In addition, the Committee is concerned at reports whereby during the trial period tasers were predominantly used on Maoris and youths (arts. 2 and 16). 106