52. The potential for the abuse of trial waivers is exacerbated by the lack of clear international standards. The ECtHR outlined that, in order to ensure the fairness of proceedings, trial waivers have to be entered into voluntarily, with full awareness by the accused of the facts and consequences, and have to be subject to judicial review.116 The UN Human Rights Committee, when considering a plea deal regarding a prisoner transfer has also highlighted the need for voluntariness and a real “choice” in entering into a plea deal.117 The Committee noted that detention conditions and ill-treatment to which the individual in question was subjected left him little choice other than to accept the terms of the plea agreement offered to him. Aside from these limited rulings, which provide an inadequate degree of protection, the operation of trial waiver systems is left to the discretion of the state. 53. Concerns have also been raised that trial waivers have a negative effect on the overall quality of investigations.118 Investigators have less incentive to ensure that rules on evidence and procedure are complied with if there is little risk that they will be scrutinized at trial. By pleading guilty, a suspect will typically waive their right to challenge the admissibility of evidence. In many legal systems, the evidence becomes irrelevant following a guilty plea, as the state is no longer required to establish guilt. Almost all of the countries surveyed for this study did not allow confessions to be relied on as the sole evidence of guilt at trial. This was not, however, the case with trial waiver systems. What can be drawn from the responses to the questionnaires is that, in most of these countries, a guilty plea is sufficient for a conviction, in addition to evidence that a crime has been committed, as opposed to evidence that specifically incriminates the suspect or accused person. One exception could be found in an Eastern European OSCE participating State, where the Criminal Procedure Code specifically requires “sufficient evidence of the accused’s guilt” in addition to “sufficient evidence for the existence of the act for which the criminal prosecution was initiated.”119 In one North American OSCE 116 Natsvlishvili and Togonidze v. Georgia App. no. 9043/05 (ECtHR, 29 April 2014) . para 92: “The Court thus observes that by striking a bargain with the prosecuting authority over the sentence and pleading no contest as regards the charges, the first applicant waived his right to have the criminal case against him examined on the merits. However, by analogy with the abovementioned principles concerning the validity of such waivers, the Court considers that the first applicant’s decision to accept the plea bargain should have been accompanied by the following conditions: (a) the bargain had to be accepted by the first applicant in full awareness of the facts of the case and the legal consequences and in a genuinely voluntary manner; and (b) the content of the bargain and the fairness of the manner in which it had been reached between the parties had to be subjected to sufficient judicial review.” 117 UN Human Rights Committee, Hicks v Australia Communication No. 2005/2010 (2015) CCPR/ C/115/D/2005/2010, para. 4.9 and 4.10. 118 Fair Trials, op. cit., note 112, p. 15, para 32. 119 Questionnaire response APADOR CH (Romania) (2019) citing articles 478 – 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 39