7 cases judges also ruled on the ban on practising the profession (for 2 to 6 years).25 The injured parties were granted redress also in 7 cases. All incidents of torture took place outside the rooms for detained persons and persons brought to sober up which are visited by the employees of the National Preventive Mechanism. They most often happened in other rooms in the Police headquarters, stations or units. It should also be noted that on 6 November 2013 the HRD addressed the Police Commander-in-Chief26 in relation to reports about the excessive use of coercive measures by the Police officers which result in injuries of detainees, asking him to present his opinion on the issue and take action, if necessary. In his reply of 4 December 2013, the Police Commander-in-Chief explained that the risk of incidents described by the Human Rights Defender was ever-present, although the Police officers are severely punished for mistakes committed while performing their duties or for intentionally breaching the law. The Police Commander-in-Chief also declared that the use of CCTV surveillance (audio and video recording) in the rooms where the Police activities are performed and the ban on performing such activities in those rooms when the CCTV cameras are off were issues still open to discussion. On 16 December 2013, the HRD also filed a petition to the General Prosecutor, arguing that, pursuant to the case-law of the ECHR, the obligation of the authorities is to conduct penal proceedings reliably in order to investigate all circumstances of a given incident and the charges against public officers concerning their inappropriate behaviour towards detainees. At the same time, the Defender listed the mistakes in penal proceedings, consisting in insufficient initiative in terms of evidence, rejection of the version of events presented by the injured party without appropriate justification, as well as acceptance of ambiguous opinions of experts as the basis for discontinuation of investigation and incomplete assessment of the behaviour of the officers from the perspective of penal law. In reply of 8 January 2014, the General Prosecutor ensured that the proceedings referred to in the letter of the HRD were the subject of particular interest of the Office of the General Prosecutor which analysed the proceedings. In some cases, irregularities and the lack of commitment in finding evidence on the part of prosecutors were founds. The General Prosecutor pointed to objective difficulties in conducting such proceedings (e.g. if the testimony of the complainant is the only evidence). Therefore, he supports the CCTV surveillance of the rooms where the Police officers perform their duties. Pursuant to Article 41(1)(4) of the Act of 6 April 1990 on the Police (Dz. U. of 2011 No 287, item 1687, as amended), a police officer shall be dismissed from the service, if he/she was sentenced with a valid court verdict for intended crime or fiscal crime, prosecuted by a public prosecutor. 26 RPO-747187-II/13/EK. 25