E/CN.4/2003/8/Add.3 page 15 performs quasi-judicial functions such as the presentation and evaluation of evidence, which are considered important by the courts, or taking statements from the accused, the value of which as evidence is not properly challenged even in the absence of an adequate defence. 38. The lack of any regulation stipulating the presumption of innocence tends, de facto, to reverse the burden of proof. B. Equipollent flagrancy and arbitrary detention 39. “Equipollent flagrancy” is based on a broad interpretation of the concept of catching an offender “in flagrante delicto”. It allows a person to be arrested not only while he is actually committing an offence, in which case the perpetrator is identified, or just after the offence has been committed, but also when the person is found within 72 hours of commission of the offence and there are objects, signs or other evidence showing that he has just committed the offence: the offence has been committed and the person has been arrested after being found out and pursued. As a result of the concept of equipollent flagrancy, arrests can be made without a court order and, as the Working Group discovered in its conversations with numerous detainees, simply on the basis of complaints or statements by witnesses. This assumption of flagrancy is incompatible with the principle of the presumption of innocence and creates risks of both arbitrary detention and extortion. C. Corruption and arbitrary detention 40. The Working Group took note of the following practices: the judicial police and, in particular, police patrols make arrests without producing an arrest warrant; relatives have recently been asked to pay a “ransom” for the release of a person who would normally be released later anyway for lack of evidence, because no charges are pressed or because the offence of which he is accused is not punishable with a custodial sentence. D. Security operations and arbitrary detention 41. The Working Group has observed how certain police practices that have no clear or precise legal basis and that can lead to arbitrary detention are tolerated. This was the subject of general recommendation No. 2/2001 of the National Human Rights Commission on the practice of arbitrary detention, which is being investigated by the Human Rights Department of the Office of the Attorney-General. The Working Group saw cars being driven without number plates, so that it would be impossible to identify the drivers, particularly in cases of abuse. Likewise, military operations are conducted in which it is not possible to identify the personnel other than by their military uniform, and the lorries have no number plates. The Working Group saw photographs of this situation. 42. Most cases of arbitrary detention appear to result from the frequent use of what are called “routine checks and surveillance” or periodic raids presented as preventive action against crime in general, as well as from arrests based on “anonymous reports” or “suspicious behaviour” or signs of “marked nervousness”, when the person concerned is not told why he is being arrested,