The court returns the case to the prosecutor for a decision. After the cancellation of a decision on refusal to initiate criminal proceedings, the procedural time of inspection starts to run again. This means that the investigator has another 3 (10) days to provide additional inspection, the result of which is usually another "refusal" resolution. In the event that an investigator in the course of additional inspection again did not have time to do something, a resolution once again is canceled and new additional verification is held. Therefore, when finally the criminal case is initiated, it often turns out that the evidence is already lost, and it is impossible to collect the evidence. In this situation, an investigation simply comes to a standstill; the criminal case is terminated or suspended. Issuance and cancellation of the decision not to institute criminal proceedings and conduct additional inspection may take up to a year or more, which violates the principle of efficiency, according to which an investigation should be carried out rapidly and extensively in order to maintain confidence in the rule of law. Another example occurred on May 28, 2014. The National Centre for the Prevention of Torture sent to the prosecutor’s office of the October district of Bishkek City, a statement of S.M. to take action against employees of the DIA of the October district of Bishkek City who subjected a detainee to torture to coerce confessions. The investigator of the prosecutor’s office of the October district of Bishkek City issued a resolution not to institute criminal proceedings three times. 50 The applicants’ access to materials of the pre-investigation inspection is necessary for realization of their right to appeal against the decision to refuse to initiate criminal proceedings. The current practice of limiting the applicant’s access to such information, and non-notification about the decision on the results of the inspection, violate the principle of participation of victims. Applicants must participate in the process of consideration of complaints to ensure their legitimate interests. The current dependence of the investigator on the final result and the need to evaluate the judicial perspective at the stage of receipt of allegations of torture is not consistent with the principle of independence. It prevents the investigator from deciding to initiate proceedings, and often leads to failures in the initiation of a criminal case. In 17.6% of cases, respondents said during the proceedings at trial on the merits of the main criminal case in which they are accused of committing a crime, that torture had been used. However, their arguments do not receive adequate attention of the court and the prosecutor, who is supporting the case of public prosecution. So, with respect to the plea of the defendant that he was tortured and confessions were extracted under torture, in 81.3% of cases a proper reaction of the court did not follow. In 87.5% of cases of a verbal report on torture, prosecutors did not react. 50 Information on the case of “Freedom of voice.” 68 | Annual Report 2014