Mechanism (MNP). This process has been described as a model for the open, transparent and inclusive participation of a wide range of stakeholders. The SPT is also satisfied with the current content of the MNP bill, which meets the minimum requirements of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT), including financial independence of the MNP. 57.At the same time, the SPT is concerned that this bill has been awaiting approval by the Legislative Commission of the Senate since January 2009. At a meeting with members of the SPT, the President of the Legislative Commission undertook to give new and rapid impetus to the legislative process, indicating that the first steps in this direction would be taken in the first half of April. However, the SPT has to date received no information in this regard. 58.The establishment of an MNP is an international obligation assumed by Paraguay in keeping with article 17 of the OPCAT. The SPT recommends that the State party, and in the first instance the Legislature, give the necessary priority to the passage of this bill so that the current text, or a similar draft meeting the requirements of the OPCAT, may become law at the earliest possible date. The SPT likewise recommends, as the Special Rapporteur on Torture has done previously, the early designation of an independent national mechanism with the necessary resources to ensure effective and continuous supervision of the conditions governing the deprivation of liberty. IV.Situation of persons deprived of their liberty A.National Police stations 59.The SPT consulted the register of detainees in the 10 police stations it visited and conducted interviews with the commissioners and officers assigned to those stations, as well as with the persons detained there. 1.Initial period of detention 60.In accordance with the Constitution (art. 12.5) and the Code of Criminal Procedure (art. 240), the detainee has the right to be brought before a competent judge within 24 hours of his arrest so that the judge may rule, within the same period, whether preventive detention is justified, whether to apply alternative measures or whether to order the release of the accused for lack of evidence. The Code of Criminal Procedure (art. 239) also obliges the National Police to bring the detention to the notice of the Public Prosecutor’s Office and a judge within 6 hours of the arrest. These legal time limits represent important safeguards against torture and ill-treatment. 61.The National Constitution stipulates that: “No one will be detained or arrested without a written order issued by a competent authority, except for those caught in flagrante delicto in relation to a crime punishable with a prison sentence ... .” At the same time, article 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure authorizes the police to detain a person without legal warrant if there is sufficient evidence that the person has been involved in a punishable offence for which pretrial detention is prescribed. This provision appears to go well beyond what is stipulated in the Constitution other than in cases of flagrante delicto. 62.The prerequisites for preventive detention are specified in article 242 of the same code. A combined reading of both precepts makes it clear that where there is evidence that a person has been involved in the commission of an offence, the police can justify detention with reference to “the existence of a risk of escape or obstruction on the part of a person suspected of a specific act under investigation”. It should be noted that, despite the fact that it is not a case of flagrante delicto, there is no ex ante judicial supervision of this detention, so that the police can decide on their own initiative whether a person is to be deprived of liberty. 63.Once a person has been detained in this way, the police have six hours to inform the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the judge responsible for procedural safeguards. During this time, the person is detained without effective judicial supervision, which — together with the lack of internal mechanisms to verify the legality of the police action — places the individual concerned in a vulnerable situation with regard to ill-treatment. 64.Preventive detention also lessens a suspect’s possibilities of defence, particularly when the person is poor and cannot rely on a defence counsel or support to obtain evidence in his favour. In this way, it not only places the detained persons at risk of ill-treatment — as frequently observed by the SPT — but also serves to increase the number of persons imprisoned without being convicted. 65.While article 282 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that “investigations by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the National Police and the Criminal Investigation Police shall always be carried out under judicial supervision”, this supervision is usually exercised a posteriori so that it does not usually prevent pretrial imprisonment. 66.Despite these express provisions in Paraguayan law and to judge from the testimonies received by the SPT, the National Police rarely comply with the legal requirement of informing the judge and the Public Prosecutor’s Office within a time limit of six hours of a suspect’s detention. This situation was occasionally confirmed by the police themselves, who could provide no plausible justification for this failure to comply with legislative provisions. Moreover, the SPT was able to verify, through interviews and scrutiny of police station registers, that the length of time spent by those detained in police stations in most cases significantly exceeds the maximum legal period of six hours. 67.The failure to comply with these procedural safeguards clearly places the detainees in a vulnerable situation, given that the period immediately following the deprivation of liberty is when the risk of torture and ill-treatment is greatest. In fact, the SPT received numerous and repeated allegations from detainees who claimed to have been subject to torture and/or ill-treatment during their arrest, their transfer to the police station and/or the early stages of their detention. The SPT repeats that informing the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the judge of the detention without delay, and placing detainees under the responsibility of a judicial authority within 24 hours of their arrest, are key safeguards against torture and ill-treatment. The SPT accordingly recommends that the National Police ensure strict compliance with the