first hearing on 2 July 2005 the First Victim informed the court that he had been tortured by SSI officers before and after interrogation sessions, in an attempt to force him to confess. 18. The Complainants further state that the First Victim told the prosecutor about his torture and requested medical attention, but the prosecutor denied his requests. 19. The Complainants state that it was during this hearing that the First Victim and his defence counsel requested that he be examined by a forensic expert. According to the Complainants, the court itself examined the First Victim in camera, in the presence of his defence counsel as well as a lawyer attending the hearing on behalf of Human Rights Watch. They state that he was stripped of his clothes for the court to examine whether there were any physical signs of torture and that the court found “… brown spots on his arms.”4 The Complainants further state that, as a result, the court granted the application for a medical examination, and adjourned the trial to 24 July 2005. 20. The Complainants aver that the Forensic Medical Authority (FMA) examination took place eight months after the victim‟s alleged torture and that the report, dated 5 July 2005, noted injuries that were consistent with the First Victim having been subjected to torture, including “healings” and “dark 4 See Forensic Report, Case no. 40/2005, 5 July 2005 (page 2 of the English translation). 6