E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.5 page 8 law; the prohibition of the death penalty; the right to be informed of the grounds for the arrest and to consult and be defended by a lawyer; bringing an arrested person before a judicial authority within 24 hours; the permissibility of pretrial detention only on judicial order; and the impermissibility of preventive detention except in the case of an immediate threat to State sovereignty, integrity or law and order. 16. Other legal safeguards against torture are contained in the 1974 Evidence Act (inadmissibility of statements made under torture); the 1963 Prison Act (examination of the physical condition of the prisoner; rights of prisoners; inspection of prisons by judges and chief district officers); the 1955 Police Act (treatment of arrested or detained persons by the police); and the 1955 Civil Rights Act (right against self-incrimination; notification of reason of arrest; right to a lawyer; being brought before a judge within 24 hours). A critical shortcoming is the absence in the law of a requirement of independent medical examinations upon arrest or transfer of suspects, although CRT, in section 3, empowers the concerned officer, at the time of a person’s detention and release, to medically examine the detainee when a government doctor is unavailable, and provides that he shall maintain the medical records and submit one copy to the district court. II. THE SITUATION OF TORTURE AND ILL-TREATMENT 17. Over the last few years, the Special Rapporteur and his predecessors have received a large number of credible and consistent allegations relating to torture and ill-treatment from Nepal, primarily in the context of the armed conflict. A large number of recent allegations by individuals were brought to the attention of the Special Rapporteur during the course of the mission. On the basis of his interviews with current and former detainees, with the support of forensic medical evidence, and interviews with government and military officials, lawyers and representatives of NGOs, the Special Rapporteur concludes unequivocally that torture and ill-treatment are systematically practised in Nepal by the police, armed police and the RNA primarily to extract confessions and to obtain intelligence in relation to the conflict. That the Government urgently needs to send a clear and unambiguous message condemning torture and ill-treatment was made dramatically clear to the Special Rapporteur when he received repeated and disturbingly frank admissions by senior police and military officials that torture was acceptable in some instances, and was indeed systematically practised. Some of these admissions were made by officers who had served in United Nations peacekeeping operations abroad, namely the chief and deputy superintendents of Hanuman Dhoka District Police Office, and the commanding officer of the RNA Kohalpur barracks. 18. The methods of torture that he encountered in the cases he examined included beatings with bamboo poles and plastic pipes, kicking with boots, pouring water into the nose, applying electric shocks to the ears, rolling wooden poles over the thighs, trampling on thighs and legs, maintenance of stress positions, binding to a pole and hanging upside down and beating, especially on the soles of the feet, and prolonged periods of being blindfolded or hooded and handcuffed. 19. The Special Rapporteur also received shocking evidence of torture, including mutilation, carried out by the Maoists in order to extort money, punish non-cooperation and intimidate others, as well as allegations of forced recruitment of women and children. Methods of torture