E/CN.4/2005/62/Add.2 page 48 Independent non-governmental investigators should be trained in prison monitoring and should be allowed unplanned, unmonitored visits to all places of detention and confidential interviews with detainees. The focus should be not on visits for their own sake, but on transparency, using qualified monitors and implementing recommendations. 217. The Government reported that it is happy to work with international organizations and NGOs and foreign States on monitoring places of detention. The claim that there is no independent monitoring of places of detention is wrong since from 17 January 2001 the ICRC has been given broad access by law enforcement organs (e.g. in 2003, 33 visits; in the first nine months of 2004, 30 visits; and 893 confidential conversations with detained persons). Similarly, the diplomatic corps and international and non-governmental organizations can access places of detention. The restrictions on access of local non-governmental organizations flow from the fact that they have little experience in conducting monitoring. But in the near future better-qualified people will appear following training for NGOs on monitoring of places of detention organized by the OSCE. 218. Recommendation (i) stated: Magistrates and judges, as well as procurators, should always ask persons brought from MVD or SNB custody how they have been treated and be particularly attentive to their condition, and, where indicated, even in the absence of a formal complaint from the defendant, order a medical examination. 219. According to the information received from non-governmental sources, according to trial monitors and interviews with defendants’ families, magistrates, judges and procurators do not routinely ask persons brought from custody how they have been treated. Further, judges often are indifferent to the condition of people brought before them, even when defendants allege the use of torture and mistreatment by law enforcement officials, defendants show signs of physical injury or request forensic medical exams. Notably, in the recent Supreme Court trial of 15 defendants charged with terrorism and other serious offences in connection with the March-April 2004 violence, the judges, procurators and defence attorneys all failed to ask the defendants about their treatment in custody; this was especially relevant given that the prosecution's case was based entirely on the defendants' confessions. The State-appointed defence counsel also failed to inquire at trial as to the conditions under which the confessions were made. It is incumbent on judges and magistrates to inquire as to the conditions and manner in which the defendant's confession was elicited to determine whether it can be admitted as evidence, or whether it agrees with the testimony the defendants later wish to present. In a July 2004 trial in Margilan of 10 defendants charged with religious offences, guards beat one of the defendants in the courtroom in front of relatives and other observers while the judge read the verdict and did not react to the beating. In the case of prisoner Jamshid Vosiev, a judge ignored his testimony that prison guards taped his mouth shut and beat him along with 100 other religious prisoners to force them to beg the State’s forgiveness. He also refused to allow Jamshid Vosiev to undergo a forensic medical examination to determine whether he has injuries from beatings. Based on interviews with former detainees, relatives of detainees, independent human rights activists and defence attorneys, there is a persistent culture of impunity among law enforcement officials, especially regarding the treatment of detainees during the interrogation and investigation stages of the criminal law process. 220. The Government reported that claims concerning systematic procedural violations by courts are biased and do not reflect reality. The Supreme Court stated on 19 December 2003 that