is denied, then the person whose application has been denied shall be informed of the reasons for the decision in writing within 36 hours. 82.Under the legislation in force at the time of the visit, this seemed to mean that during the first seven days in police custody, the decision on bail was taken by the police. After this initial police custody period, the decision on bail was taken by the same Committee that decided on the extension of the detention. The SPT recommends that the Maldivian authorities review the system of release on bail so the authority that is responsible for investigating the crime does not also decide upon bail. The SPT requests information on whether the new procedure laid down in article 48 (d) of the new Constitution will bring any changes to the procedure regarding p retr ial remand in custody and bail and, if so, asks to receive information on those changes. 83.During the visit, the delegation gained the impression that practical difficulties relating to bail contributed to the number of persons remanded in custody. Although bail might be granted, there could still be financial obstacles to achieving bail in practice, as the surety demanded for release might be very high and most of the time not affordable for ordinary Maldivians. In order to make the release on bail a real possibility in practice, the SPT recommends that the amount of the surety should be in line with the financial means of the detainee concerned. The SPT requests information on number of requests be released on bail submitted in 2007 and first half of 2008, and the number of persons granted bail. 3. Production before a court as a safeguard against ill-treatment 84.Under the Regulation Governing the Application to a Judge for the Arrest or Detention of Persons Suspected of Committing an Offence for a further Period than Approved by the Committee (14 October 2003), the role of the judiciary starts only after the first seven days of custody decided by the police and the 15 days extension granted by the Committee. Consequently, persons may be held in police custody for a period of 22 days without having their detention approved or reviewed by a judicial body. 85.The above-mentioned Regulation does not indicate the maximum period that the judges are allowed to extend the custody pending investigations, but provides under its section 6, that the judge shall, in writing, state the period of arrest or detention. In addition, it does not require the court to provide the grounds for the extension of the detention in writing, but only the grounds for a decision denying the extension. 86.Furthermore, no reference to the duty of the court to hear the detainee him/herself in person is made in the Regulation; under section 4, only an officer from the investigative authority shall be answerable to any queries or questions posed by the judge. Also the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers stated in his report on Maldives that the judge examines the request for extension without hearing the detainee or his lawyer. This was also confirmed by the detainees interviewed by the delegation, who alleged that they were detained by the police for weeks, even months, without being brought to the court. 87.As noted earlier, the SPT is aware of the new constitutional provision according to which a detainee shall now be brought before a judge within 24 hours to determine the validity of the detention, to release the person with or without conditions, or to order the continued detention of the accused. The SPT requests information on whether the Regulation Governing the Application to a Judge for the Arrest or Detention of Persons Suspected of Committing an Offence for a Further Period than Approved by the Committee will be amended or repealed due to entry into force of the new Constitution. In the absence of a maximum time limit for detention, the SPT recommends that the decision to continue the detention should be reviewed by the court at regular intervals. 88.Judicial oversight of a decision to extend the custody period, that is appearance of a person deprived of liberty before a court and the possibility to challenge the detention decision and to report any ill-treatment, is an important safeguard of the rights of the detainee in general and against ill-treatment in particular. The SPT underlines that no one should be held in detention without being given an effective opportunity to be heard promptly by a judicial or other authority. The SPT recommends that detainees should not only be present in the court hearing regarding detention and its continuation, but that the court should afford them an opportunity to speak and to report any ill-treatment. It should always be open to the court to make a referral for medical examination if there are reasons to believe that ill-treatment may have occurred, and to take steps to ensure that any allegations of ill-treatment are promptly investigated by a competent body. 4. Risk entailed in reliance on confession for conviction 89.Under the law in force, it is possible for a court to determine conviction on the sole basis of a confession. From discussions with the authorities, the delegation gained the impression that police investigations also tended to focus on obtaining confessions and that the prosecutorial and judicial process also centred on confession. However, the delegation was informed that confession alone is usually not regarded as a sole ground for conviction any more, and that most convictions and sentences (almost 90%) have been decided upon the basis on some evidence other than solely a confession. 90.However, several detainees interviewed by the delegation alleged that the police still resorted to obtaining statements through coercion and ill-treatment. For example, some detainees interviewed by the delegation stated that they were beaten by members of a special investigation unit during the investigation to make them to confess their involvement in the explosion in Himandhoo. In another interview, a detainee alleged that his hands were tied behind his back while he was beaten all over in the interrogation room of the Malé Custodial outside of a formal interrogation session. Furthermore, in Dhoonidhoo Police Detention Centre, the delegation interviewed a detainee who had allegedly been obliged to spend a week sleeping outside, without a mattress, on a concrete plinth next to noisy pump machinery. This inappropriate sleeping arrangement had allegedly been arranged by custodial staff at the behest of the police investigator in charge of the case.