E/CN.4/2003/8/Add.3 page 17 oversight by the courts and the implementation of the measure in places that, while not actually secret, are “discreet”. The Working Group established that inquiries about their precise location were more or less a taboo subject, including for administration officials. G. Shortcomings of amparo for combating arbitrary detention 51. The Amparo Act stipulates that the remedy of amparo can be used when there is reason to believe a person may have been detained or his place of detention is unknown. Its ineffectiveness results from the fact that the person reporting the crime must say where the victim is supposed to be and which authorities are responsible for the loss of contact, whereas the person filing the amparo suit is often uncertain of the victim’s whereabouts and does not always know who seized the victim. In most cases, proceedings are shelved, and this rules out any effective control by the courts over those practising arbitrary detention without reference to judicial procedure. To make amparo proceedings really effective is probably one of the most urgently needed reforms in the fight against arbitrary detention. H. Shortcomings in the public defence system and arbitrary detention 52. There are still serious shortcomings in the public defence system in Mexico. Although the Federal Office of the Public Defender has more resources, State-level public defenders are short of funding. While many of the shortcomings can be attributed to incompetence or lack of professional knowledge, they are also the result of a visible imbalance between the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the public defence system, with the former dominating the latter in practice. 53. The two parties to the proceedings are not on an equal footing, not only resource-wise, but also because of the system of criminal procedure itself. The Working Group found that there are a number of reasons for this imbalance: a shortage of public defenders and support staff; a lack of independence; poor working conditions;1 and imbalances in the handling of evidence. With regard to the latter point, the Public Prosecutor’s Office, unlike the defence, can call on the support of specialist laboratories. This has a demotivating effect on defence lawyers and discourages them from developing the “culture of opposition” inherent in their role. 54. Many detainees complained to the Working Group about the performance of public defenders. Some public defenders acknowledged that, given the quantity of cases assigned to them and the scarce resources available, they were barely able to defend their clients. Other detainees even said that, because of the great difficulty experienced by the public defender in collecting evidence and calling witnesses to prove their innocence, they preferred to plead guilty to some offence in order to increase their chances of early release. 55. The Working Group also observed that there is not always time for a person who has been arrested to meet with his defence lawyer before he makes his first statement to the Public 1 According to the Federal Public Defenders Act, there should be one public defender for each investigative unit of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, one for each judge and one for each one-person court. These defenders must carry out their duties in the same buildings as appointed officials.