E/CN.4/1991/17 page 77 242. A member of the Court majority in an address to the Philippine Bar Association defended the doctrine of continuing offence. He said that rebellion and subversion are offences not usually constituted by single acts, but by a succession of acts, since rebels and subversives plan and expect to undertake a series of acts geared toward the attainment of their object. He emphatically denied that arrests of persons may be made on mere suspicion that they are rebels or subversives, or that their arrests deserve less than the full attention and concern of the court. 243. Nevertheless, human rights organizations fear that there will be an increase of arrests merely for being placed on the list of wanted persons by the military. According to the military authorities, such lists - called "orders of battle" - are established as a result of intelligence network information and are thoroughly checked. However, since such lists are drawn up unilaterally by the military authorities, concern was expressed by human rights organizations that arrests without a warrant on the mere basis of a person's inclusion in the list (which to them seems to be the substance of the Court's ruling), will lead to substitution of the judgement of a judge with the judgement of the police, the CAFGUs, CVOs or the military. It was feared that such arbitrary arrests without judicial control might also lead to an increase in the occurrence of torture. 244. In this respect attention was drawn to the fact that in many cases people are arrested without warrant on suspicion of sedition or subversion and then, since rebellion or sedition are difficult to prove, are charged with illegal possession of firearms in furtherance of rebellion, which is an unbailable offence. A person cannot be arrested for this offence without a warrant, unless caught in flagrante. It was alleged that often, after a warrantless arrest on suspicion of sedition, firearms were planted in the arrested person's house or car, while in the meantime they could be interrogated about their contacts, etc. It was also said that quite often such persons were found to be innocent during trial, and, consequently, were acquitted. 245. Meanwhile, a motion for reconsideration of the decision on warrantless arrests has been filed with the Supreme Court. The decision, therefore, is not final. 246. If a person is arrested without a warrant, the arresting officer must deliver such person to the proper judicial authority within a period ranging from 12 to 36 hours, depending upon the penalty prescribed for the offence (these terms do not apply for arrests upon warrant, since here the judge has already evaluated the information filed). Moreover, each detained person shall be informed of the cause of his detention and shall be allowed to communicate and confer at any time privately with his attorney or counsel. Non-compliance with these provisions is a punishable act (art. 125 of the Revised Penal Code). Relatives of the arrested person also have the right to visit him. 247. According to information received from a non-governmental organization, torture is generally not practised in order to gain confessions nor to prosecute cases against the victims, but mainly to obtain information. According to the Constitution any confession or admission extracted by torture or maltreatment is inadmissible in court. The Supreme Court has given extremely strict rulings in this respect. It has even ruled that persons willing to make a confession under oath must be medically examined before they are sworn in.