A/HRC/34/54/Add.1 81. Independently of the law, one of the tasks of the National Bar Association is to provide free legal representation to indigent individuals, before all jurisdictions, including in criminal cases. This aspiration seems however to be far from the reality: the Special Rapporteur was in fact greatly concerned to find out that, in at least one of the regions visited, there was only one lawyer. 82. Lack of access to a lawyer was indeed one of the main concerns raised by detainees interviewed by the Special Rapporteur, and the fact that their families could not afford to pay for legal services. 83. The Special Rapporteur welcomes the adoption of the new law on legal aid but regrets that it does not address the right of indigent defendants to an adequate defence. He stresses the need to ensure that indigent defendants are effectively provided with apt legal representation financed by the State as a fundamental safeguard against torture and illtreatment. 2. Exclusion of evidence obtained under torture 84. According to article 6 of the 2015 anti-torture law, any statement established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except as evidence against a person accused of committing torture, and the preliminary articles of the Code of Criminal Procedure state that confessions obtained under torture, violence or force shall be invalid. 85. Yet, as suspects most often lack legal representation, in particular during the first hours in police custody and while the judicial investigation is ongoing, they are at high risk of being subjected to ill-treatment or torture while undergoing interrogations aimed at extracting a coerced confession. 86. Despite legal provisions and numerous testimonies heard by the Special Rapporteur of forced confessions, only in a very limited number of cases has evidence been excluded because it was obtained through torture or ill-treatment. In a meeting with representatives of the Ministry of Justice, the Special Rapporteur was informed of only two cases,16 both brought before a court in the capital, involving confessions that were declared null and void and that were therefore stricken from the proceedings because they were obtained under duress. The suspects in the two cases were acquitted. 87. The Special Rapporteur is very concerned that judges are apparently willing to admit confessions in criminal proceedings without attempting to corroborate them with other evidence, thereby creating conditions that encourage the torture and ill-treatment of suspects. 3. Complaints procedure 88. In principle, prosecutors can and must investigate all allegations of torture and illtreatment ex officio. They do not need to receive a complaint.17 16 17 In case No. 751/2006, a first instance court of Nouakchott acquitted and released several suspects whose confessions had been obtained under duress, after their statements had been excluded from the proceedings (decision No. 128/2007 of 31 July 2007). In case No. 570/2014, the Penal Chamber of the Court of Appeals in Nouakchott West (decision No. 30-2015) reversed the first instance conviction of several individuals after declaring that their statements to the police were null and void — as were all subsequent proceedings — because the suspects had been arrested and charged with the same crime twice (ne bis in idem/res judicata). Anti-torture law, art. 9. 15