E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.2 page 70 course of its enquiries, the Bureau has instructed inspectors with the approval of the Ministry of Interior for 38 applications requiring special expertise. Furthermore, discipline reports issued with respect to 10 incidents were conveyed to the Discipline Boards for action. The allegations in relation to 28 incidents were found to be unsubstantiated. A specialized branch called the Gendarmerie Human Rights Violations Investigation and Evaluation Centre was founded on 26 April 2003 to investigate and evaluate allegations of human rights against the Gendarmerie. The Centre investigates allegations, and if necessary initiates administrative or judicial investigations. The result of the action taken by the Centre is submitted to the complainants. In addition, reports on the overall activities of the Centre and statistical information are publicized. Since its creation, the Centre has received 120 applications regarding allegations of torture and illtreatment. As a result, 17 applications were referred to the judicial authorities, 22 applications were found to be already under judicial investigation and disciplinary measures were imposed on 2 officers. Of the 120 applications, 79 were found to be inadmissible. 326. Recommendation (j) stated: The practice of blindfolding detainees in police custody should be absolutely forbidden. 327. According to information from NGOs sources, there has been a noticeable reduction in the blindfolding of detainees in police custody. However, blindfolding is still used during interrogation. This method prevents victims of torture and ill-treatment during interrogation from identifying the perpetrators. 328. The Government informed that the practice of blindfolding detainees in police custody is forbidden. Article 135(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code and Article 23 of the Regulation on Apprehension, Custody and Taking of Statements (RACT) set out prohibited interrogation techniques. 329. Recommendation (k) stated: Given the manifestly pervasive practice of torture, at least up to 1996, there should be a review by an independent body of undisputed integrity of all cases in which the primary evidence against convicted persons is a confession allegedly made under torture. All police officials, including the most senior, found to have been involved in the practice, either directly or by acquiescence, should be forthwith removed from police service and prosecuted; the same should apply to prosecutors and judges implicated in colluding in or ignoring evidence of the practice; the victims should receive substantial compensation. 330. According to information from NGOs, in domestic law, there is a prohibition on relying on confessions obtained by torture as evidence. However, this issue is still problematic in practice. According to the information received, confessions that may have been obtained by torture or ill-treatment are frequently relied upon as evidence. Senior police officers continue to avoid prosecution for being involved in, or acquiescing to, torture or ill-treatment. Furthermore, there is no mechanism for prosecuting judges and prosecutors who collude in, or ignore evidence of torture and ill-treatment. It is possible to bring disciplinary measures against them by filing a complaint to the Supreme Council of Judges and Prosecutors. 331. Recommendation (l) stated: A system permitting an independent body, consisting of respected members of the community, representatives of legal and medical professional