CAT/C/LKA/CO/5 (paras. 19-20), fundamental legal safeguards (paras. 27-28) and forced confessions (paras. 31-32). Allegations of routine torture during police detention 9. The Committee remains seriously concerned at consistent reports from national and United Nations sources, including the Special Rapporteur on torture, indicating that torture is a common practice carried out in relation to regular criminal investigations in a large majority of cases by the Criminal Investigation Department of the police, regardless of the nature of the suspected offence. The Committee is concerned that the broad police powers to arrest suspects without a court warrant has led to the practice of detaining persons while conducting the investigations as a means to obtain information under duress. The Committee notes allegations that police investigators often fail to register detainees during the initial hours of deprivation of liberty or to bring them before a magistrate within the time limit prescribed by law, during which time torture is particularly likely to occur. It also notes with concern that neither the Attorney General nor the judiciary exert sufficient supervision over the legality of the detention or the conduct of police investigations to prevent this practice. In this regard, the Committee shares the concern of the Special Rapporteur on torture that magistrates often do not inquire into potential ill-treatment during pretrial hearings and agree to the requests of police officers to keep suspects in remand custody without further scrutiny (arts. 2, 12 and 16). 10. The Committee calls on the State party to: (a) Make the necessary legislative amendments requiring the police to obtain an arrest warrant issued by a judicial authority to conduct an arrest, except in cases of flagrante delicto; (b) Ensure that detained persons are promptly brought before a judge within the time limit established by law, which should not go beyond 48 hours; (c) Ensure that arresting officers register the exact date, time, ground for the detention and place of arrest of all detained persons. The State party should ensure that compliance with the detention registration system is closely monitored and penalize any officers who fail to adhere to it or to ensure that their subordinates do so; (d) Establish effective prosecutorial oversight over police actions during investigation and improve criminal investigation methods in order to end statements obtained during police interrogation being relied on as the central element of proof in criminal prosecutions; (e) Remind judges of their duty, whenever they have a reason to believe that a person appearing before them may have been subjected to torture or duress, to actively ask the detainees about their treatment during detention and to request a forensic examination. The competent authorities should hold responsible those persons whose duty it is to apply the law, including judges who fail to respond appropriately to allegations of torture raised during judicial proceedings; (f) Install video surveillance in all places of custody where detainees may be present, except in cases where detainees’ right to privacy or to confidential communication with their lawyer or doctor may be violated. Such recordings should be kept in secure facilities and be made available to investigators, detainees and lawyers; (g) Encourage the application of non-custodial measures as an alternative to pretrial detention. 3