A/HRC/13/66 70. Some victims and witnesses accused the Fiscalía unit of forensic medicine of deliberately not keeping adequate records and of failing to take appropriate action in cases of human rights violations. Some victims alleged that visits for follow-up examinations by forensic doctors in cases of human rights violations were not recorded, resulting in loss of evidence of torture and ill-treatment. Lack of knowledge or will to implement the Istanbul Protocol,23 were also denounced in such cases. The mission observed the lack of institutional strategies for documenting and investigating human rights violations. Information provided by the Fiscalía, including by the department of forensic medicine, was based on NGO reports. 71. The fact that the National Bureau of Criminal Investigations is not independent from the Police Bureau — both are part of the Ministry of Security — has hampered its ability to intervene in cases of violations allegedly committed by police agents. Human rights prosecutors considered this an obstacle to their investigations, due to the fact that it has no investigative police of its own. 72. The Supreme Court stated that all the amparo writs filed to protect rights violated in the context of the coup or against the emergency decrees were dismissed or suffered delays. Judges in the Supreme Court did not take action regarding amparo writs presented against the emergency decrees until after they had expired, thus avoiding having to rule on their legality, or systematically requested additional information, which delayed the process. Furthermore, writs of habeas corpus filed with the Supreme Court took many days (the average was more than one week) to be decided upon, in contravention of the provisions of international and regional instruments. San Pedro Sula was an exception. The Supreme Court stated that all habeas corpus writs received were dismissed since most detainees were released. These decisions have impacted on the possibility of initiating criminal proceedings against those responsible for arbitrary or illegal detention. Delays in executing habeas corpus writs cannot be an excuse for not deciding on the legality of detention. The closure of the tribunals on election day prevented the exercise of habeas corpus, particularly in Tegucigalpa. 73. The public stance of the Supreme Court, defining the coup as a “constitutional succession” and declaring its legality, cast doubt on its impartiality and commitment to the rule of law. Subsequent interventions by the Court seem to have confirmed this. The mission received information about disciplinary procedures undertaken against judges and public defenders for executing habeas corpus writs and for their participation in other measures such as the filing of amparo actions against emergency decrees. 74. Disciplinary measures were also taken against members of the judiciary who signed an editorial disagreeing with the “constitutional succession”, took part in demonstrations or made statements considered to affect the “dignity of the Administration”. Members of the judiciary who were victims of such procedures complained that the authorities did not provide information about the charges against them and they were thus unable to properly ensure their defence. The Association of Judges for Democracy denounced these measures in a press release on 3 November 2009. 75. With regard to the right to defence, according to testimonies received, especially from demonstrators accused of sedition, defendants and their lawyers were allowed to exchange information only a few minutes before the hearings, thus limiting the preparation of their defence. 23 16 Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. GE.10-11700