- 28 40. The concerns from the two examples cited above were substantiated by frequent corresponding allegations from detained persons. In a number of cases, detained persons who alleged ill-treatment by the police during questioning claimed that, although they had clearly visible injuries when being presented before the prosecutor or investigating judge, the latter did not ask them about the origin of these injuries.30 Other persons alleged that they complained orally to the prosecutor about police ill-treatment, but that the latter did not feel concerned or referred them to the subsequent hearing with the investigative judge. This practice disregards the order issued by the Public Prosecutor of the Supreme Court on 4 June 2008, according to which prosecutors receiving an allegation of ill-treatment are under an obligation to initiate a criminal investigation, including ordering a medical examination by a forensic doctor. Further, the delegation also received information, according to which judges tended to summarily dismiss any allegations of ill-treatment without examining the substance of the claims. 41. It is self-evident that prosecutors and judges should take resolute action whenever there are indications that ill-treatment by the police may have occurred. In this regard, whenever criminal suspects brought before prosecutorial or judicial authorities allege ill-treatment, those allegations should be recorded in writing, a forensic medical examination should be immediately ordered, and the necessary steps taken to ensure that the allegations are properly investigated. Such an approach should be followed whether or not the person concerned bears visible external injuries. Further, even in the absence of an express allegation of ill-treatment, the prosecutor/judge should adopt a proactive approach; for example, whenever there are other grounds to believe that a person brought before him or her could have been the victim of ill-treatment, a forensic medical examination should be requested. Similarly, they must conduct the proceedings in such a way that the persons concerned have a real opportunity to make a statement about the manner in which they have been treated. The CPT recommends that prosecutors and judges be reminded firmly, through the appropriate channels, that they should act in accordance with the above-mentioned principles. Whenever a detained person alleges ill-treatment, a forensic medical examination should be immediately ordered and the necessary steps taken to ensure that the allegations are promptly and properly investigated. 42. In the CPT’s view, the accurate and timely documenting and reporting of forensic medical evidence will often be crucial for the effectiveness of investigations into allegations of ill-treatment, which in turn will act as a strong deterrent against the commission of ill-treatment in future. From the information gathered during the visit, it is clear that forensic medical examinations of persons who alleged ill-treatment were generally not sought or carried out. In those rare cases where such an examination was done, it was often performed without sufficient promptness and was of poor quality. 30 For example, one of the three foreigners who complained about ill-treatment by police officers at Agios Panteleimonas Police Station (see paragraph 19) also claimed that he had visible swellings on his face resulting from his alleged ill-treatment, but that neither the prosecutor nor the investigative judge took any action. Similarly, a remand prisoner interviewed in Korydallos Men’s Judicial Prison alleged that he had been punched to his left eye by an officer of the security police, which caused an apparent bruise. Although he did orally complain to the prosecutor about the incident and showed him his visible injury in the left orbital region – an injury that was not present when he first saw the prosecutor earlier – he did not take any action.