E/CN.4/2001/66/Add.1 page 27 specific complaint had been expressed. This resolution also reiterated the rule that testimonies obtained under duress shall not be admitted as evidence in court. The Chairperson of the Supreme Court nevertheless noted that, in her view, most torture allegations in court were made by defendants to escape responsibility for confessions they had previously made freely. Judges should always rely on other elements to determine whether the person made a confession under duress. 99. On the other hand, the Minister of Justice stated that a complaint of torture must never be taken prima facie as a defence, but should always be the subject of a careful investigation. The judiciary also has to play a proactive role in that respect in verifying the information, since he recognized that victims might be afraid to complain, even in front of a magistrate. It was also reported that magistrates have been asked, when evaluating evidence, to pay particular attention to the way evidence was obtained.12 In particular, magistrates should always inquire about whether defendants have had access to legal assistance. The necessity of having an independent judiciary was also referred to. In particular, the Minister mentioned the recent process of selection of new judges, including judges of the Supreme Court, through an examination. He also suggested that investigators should be instructed to ask for regular medical expertise as soon as any doubts arise regarding the health conditions of suspects or detainees. 100. According to the Minister, serious measures had been taken against law enforcement officials found guilty of acts of torture: they had been administratively sanctioned and, in some cases, criminally prosecuted. Similarly, the General Prosecutor assured the Special Rapporteur that all cases of torture, illegal detention and denial of access to a lawyer are always investigated by his Office. A special service has been created within the General Prosecutor’s Office to deal with such complaints. Furthermore, the head of the Law Enforcement Bodies Department and the Minister of Justice indicated that in the future amnesty laws will not cover cases of torture. On 10 March 2000, the special meeting of the Pardon Commission of the Office of the President is said to have discussed the recommendations of CAT and to have decided that amnesties or pardons will not apply to persons convicted of torture and inhumane treatment.13 It is also reported that the five amnesty acts adopted during the period 1996-1999 excluded the possibility of amnesty for persons charged with or convicted of crimes mentioned in paragraph 2 of article 168 (“actions ultra vires”) of the previous Criminal Code.14 101. The Special Rapporteur welcomes the information according to which the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is currently discussing the possibility of making the declarations under articles 21 and 22 of the Convention against Torture. 102. According to the new Criminal Procedure Code, forensic reports may be obtained from forensic officials who are under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Health or from private doctors. At the time of the visit of the Special Rapporteur, forensic reports were only to be obtained through instructions given by the police. It was also reported that detainees in pre-trial detention did not have the right to be attended by their own doctors and detainees and their lawyers were said not to have the right to arrange forensic medical examination or other expert analyses.15 No information on the new provisions regarding these issues has been made available by the authorities concerned to the Special Rapporteur, despite his request.