E/CN.4/2001/66/Add.2 page 51 were seldom actually punished owing to the expiry of the period of legal responsibility. According to human rights lawyers and NGOs, prior to the Torture Act, the statute of limitations also undermined efforts to prosecute instances of torture. If a person is convicted after the statute of limitations has expired, the judge cannot impose a sentence of detention. It is also reported that this has encouraged corrupt judges to delay certain cases purposely, so that they could be dismissed.72 To avoid waste of judicial resources, prosecutors frequently dismissed cases of bodily harm, certain that even if they managed to prosecute the responsible party successfully, the statute of limitations would likely have run out before conviction, thus eliminating the possibility of a term of imprisonment. 154. According to a number of officials, including members of the Commission on Human Rights of the Chamber of Deputies, public prosecutors and the police corregedor of the State of Minas Gerais and NGOs, torture cases are still often classified by judges as “bodily harm” or “abuse of authority”. “Abuse of authority” and “bodily harm” were also said to be more commonly used by judges because they are more narrowly defined than torture. According to public prosecutors who had dealt with torture cases, after hearing testimonies from both the alleged victim and law enforcement officials, judges would often act in dubio pro reo and accept latters’ statements to the effect that they “had not beaten a detainee, but only slapped him/her”. They would then plead guilty to a lesser charge. According to NGOs, many judges consider the punishment applicable for the crime of torture as too severe. As a result, human rights prosecutors of Minas Gerais reported, for example, that there had been only two cases of prosecutions under the Torture Act in the state. It must be stressed that no one has ever been convicted of torture under the Torture Act in Brazil. The virtual ignoring of this law was the subject of a major conference held in September 2000 at the Court of Appeal in Brasilia, with support from the Secretariat of State for Human Rights and the National Forum of Police Ombudsmen. The latter is reported to have recommended, inter alia that the federal Government make the release of funds to national police departments subject to certain conditions, such as the creation of mechanisms to ensure that police officers subject to administrative proceedings are suspended from duty and the creation of autonomous and independent corregedorias. 155. The judicial system as a whole has been blamed for its inefficiency, in particular slowness, lack of independence, corruption, and for problems relating to lack of resources and trained staff, as well as the pervasive practice of impunity for the powerful. Judges and lawyers have reportedly been subjected to threats and intimidation. Despite their power in law, judges are often said to be under pressure not to act ex officio in relation, for example, to conditions of detention. A penal judge in Brasilia who had started to close down police stations was reportedly replaced. In March 1999 a Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry was appointed to look into deficiencies in the judiciary. 156. Finally, the Special Rapporteur notes that with respect to criminal offences committed by military police officers, the Military Criminal Procedure Code (Decree-Law No. 1002/69 of 21 October 1969) provides that they must be tried by the military justice system.73 By Law 9299/96, jurisdiction has been transferred to ordinary courts in cases of intentional homicide (homicidio doloso) against a civilian74. However, the initial police inquiry continues to rest with the military investigators, and so does the classification of whether a crime is considered “intentional homicide” or “manslaughter”. The crimes of bodily harm, torture and