E/CN.4/2005/62/Add.2 page 46 205. According to the information received from non-governmental sources, the Government has not implemented habeas corpus despite representations to the international community about its plans to do so. The only mention of habeas corpus in the Government’s Plan is contained in action 3.2, which calls for “organizing a round table to discuss international experience on the implementation of the institution of habeas corpus in the national legislation of foreign States”, to be held in June 2004. It is unclear whether this round table actually took place. 206. The Government reported that following a round table in October 2003 (co-organized with UNDP, the OSCE and the National Human Rights Centre) to study best practices in the area, the Ministry of the Interior constantly monitors whether detentions or arrests are justified (art. 225) and whether the right to file a complaint (art. 241) is used. A draft law “On the Detention of Suspects and Accused” is being elaborated and draft amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code providing for the possibility to complain about acts and decisions of State organs have been prepared. 207. Recommendation (d) stated: The Government should take the necessary measures to establish and ensure the independence of the judiciary in the performance of their duties in conformity with international standards, notably the United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary. Measures should also be taken to ensure respect for the principle of the equality of arms between the prosecution and the defence in criminal proceedings. 208. According to the information received from non-governmental sources, the Government’s reforms (see E/CN.4/2004/56/Add.3, paras. 275-279) consist mainly of proposals to consider changes to legislation and of plans to implement gradual amendments with no stated time frames or benchmarks to evaluate effectiveness. 209. The Government reported that the deepening of judicial and legal reform is an important component of establishing the rule of law in Uzbekistan. It cannot be done within clearly stated time frames because it depends on the availability of financial and organizational means and certain social preconditions. 210. Recommendation (e) stated: The Government should ensure that all allegations of torture and similar ill-treatment are promptly, independently and thoroughly investigated by a body, outside the procuracy, capable of prosecuting perpetrators. 211. According to the information received from non-governmental sources, allegations of torture and ill-treatment are not consistently investigated “promptly, independently and thoroughly” by a body outside the procuracy capable of prosecuting perpetrators. Practice indicates that the Ombudsman’s office forwards complaints of torture or mistreatment directly to the body accused of the torture rather than investigating them independently. Many Uzbeks consider the office of the Ombudsman to function merely as a “post office” which redirects complaints rather than as a protector of rights. In response to the 23 April 2004 death in custody of Andrei Shelkovenko, the Government consented to having two foreign forensic experts observe the second autopsy. The independent experts confirmed the Government’s allegations that Andrei Shelkovenko had committed suicide by hanging. This single example of a diligent and transparent forensic investigation into the causes of a death in custody is the exception rather than the rule. A high-level government official stated in 15 July 2004 to the Zerkalo newspaper