A/HRC/13/39 to the basic principles of equality before the law and fairness. Detainees are often not aware of their rights, even when it comes to which treatment is actually permissible during interrogations. However, even in States with legal aid schemes, many detainees voiced doubts regarding the independence of their State-appointed lawyers or reported that they requested additional payment, since State-provided remuneration did not meet the lawyers’ fees. (e) Lack of forensic examinations 55. One of the major challenges when it comes to proving cases of torture and illtreatment is the gathering of evidence. Since abuses are mainly inflicted behind closed doors, victims most often have an uphill struggle to make their cases heard and get their complaints properly considered. This is particularly the case for persons who are accused of having committed a crime and carry the stigma of not being credible and trying to avoid justice by complaining about their treatment.10 Forensic medical science is a crucial tool in addressing this problem, since it can establish the degree of correlation of the medical findings with the allegations brought forward and therefore provide evidence on which prosecutions can be based.11 Modern medical examinations can help to detect injuries which are otherwise not visible, such as soft tissue or nerve trauma – essential in light of the ever increasing sophistication of torture methods. 56. As the Special Rapporteur has previously stated, the most effective way of preventing torture therefore is to expose all places of detention to public scrutiny.12 However, in too many countries, no public monitoring exists or external monitors rarely have access to all places of deprivation of liberty, and the preconditions for effective monitoring, such as unannounced visits and confidential interviews with detainees, are often not granted. Moreover, a recurring problem faced by public monitoring is a lack of human and financial resources. C. Remedies and reparation 57. As torture often leaves indelible traces on the body — or in the minds — of the victims, reparation can almost never be complete. However, article 14 of the Convention against Torture requires each State party to ensure in its legal system that the victim of an act of torture obtains redress and has an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation, including the means for as full a rehabilitation as possible. This is a specific manifestation of the general right of victims of human rights violations to a remedy and adequate reparation, as laid down in various international and regional human rights treaties and should also apply to victims of other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Consequently, reparation has to encompass several aspects. What victims perceive as fair and adequate reparation for the ordeals they had to endure may differ from case to case. In the Special Rapporteur’s experience, victims of torture are not primarily interested in monetary compensation, but in having their dignity restored. Public acknowledgment of the harm and humiliation caused and the establishment of the truth together with a public apology may often provide greater satisfaction than monetary compensation. For many torture survivors, justice is only perceived as such when criminal prosecution has lead to an appropriate punishment of the perpetrators. Most victims of torture are in urgent need of long-term medical and psychological rehabilitation in 10 11 12 14 See also A/62/221, para. 50. Ibid.; see also Human Rights Council resolution 10/24, para. 11. A/61/259, para. 74. GE.10-10042