A/HRC/19/61/Add.2 at the various stages of custody and judicial process. In practice, however, any torture or coercion had by then already taken place – at the time of apprehension and transfer to a police station, an action that is not recorded. The law authorizes police to make an arrest on suspicion of criminal responsibility and without judicial warrant, which by itself constitutes an invitation to mistreatment. On the other hand, the law also states that, within three hours of making an arrest, the police officer must take the person to an investigating officer or release him or her. The irregular – but almost routine – procedure of unregistered arrest makes it impossible to establish whether the three-hour maximum term for the first stage of deprivation of liberty is observed. Similarly, the 12-hour period envisaged for notification of family members about the arrest by the investigator, as stipulated in article 99 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appears to be an ineffective safeguard. 45. Almost all detainees interviewed indicated that they had been subjected to mistreatment or beating since the time of apprehension and delivery to the temporary detention facility for the purpose of extracting a confession. During this unaccounted period of time, suspects may be held in unofficial detention settings (unregistered custody), such as in police vehicles or office rooms, where police officers have “conversations” with suspects or witnesses. This involves inviting a person to the police station without recording the time and purpose of the visit, and often holding a person incommunicado for an unlimited period of time. These individuals do not in effect enjoy the rights that are provided for by criminal procedure law to suspects or accused. 2. Evidence obtained under torture 46. The Special Rapporteur received reports according to which, in practice, confessions obtained under torture are not expressly excluded as evidence in court. Moreover, the majority of verdicts in criminal cases are mostly based on voluntary confessional statements made during the investigation or at the time of surrender. In addition, the courts encourage this practice by giving undue weight to confessions when evaluating evidence. If a defendant claims during trial that the confession was obtained through torture, the courts either ignore such statements altogether or conduct a superficial inquiry by simply questioning the police officers in court. After the officers deny the use of torture, the judge concludes that the defendant’s allegations are not substantiated and should be treated as an effort to avoid justice. 3. Lack of ex officio investigations 47. Under current legislation, acts of torture and ill-treatment are not investigated ex officio, but only at the request of the victim once a motion has been received from the defence lawyer. 48. The Special Rapporteur received information and heard testimonies according to which, in trials relating to the violence of June 2010, judges and prosecutors repeatedly failed to act on information of torture or ill-treatment supplied by defendants or their lawyers. The Special Rapporteur heard multiple allegations and received reports according to which judges often ignored allegations of torture made by defendants, or silenced the defendants to halt descriptions of how they had been ill-treated during investigation. In several cases, courts dismissed allegations of torture, claiming that the allegations were groundless because the defendant or his/her lawyer had not submitted complaints to the prosecutors ahead of the trial. 49. The decision of the Supreme Court of 20 December 2011 upholding the life sentence for prominent human rights defender Azimjan Askarov and other defendants convicted in relation to the violence of June 2010, despite reports of his torture in detention and 12