Recommendation (E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.6) be expanded throughout the country. Situation in during visit in 2005 (See E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.6) confessions obtained through torture could not form the basis of a criminal charge, however it did not exclude their admissibility in judicial proceedings. - The Government has acknowledged the pervasiveness of torture for the purpose of extracting confession and the SPP announced in 2005 that eliminating confession through torture was among its priorities. - Piloting systems of audio and video recording in interrogation rooms had been started. introducing the regulations, the Death Penalty rules may also be used as a reference in handling other criminal justice cases). The Dui Hua Foundation has translated these into English at Http://www.duihua.org/hrjournal/evidence/evidence.htm 13 A/HRC/19/61/Add.3 Steps taken in previous years (See A/HRC/4/33/Add.2, A/HRC/7/3/Add.2, Information received in the A/HRC/10/44/Add.5 and A/HRC/16/52/Add.2) reporting period interpreted by international and Chinese legal scholars as marking a positive step in that they underscore the seriousness with which national-level authorities view the problem of illegally obtained evidence. However, given past history the real test will be the effective implementation of the new regulations by local courts. - It should be noted that the regulations cover evidentiary rules within formal criminal proceedings only, and not within the many forms of administrative detention. - Also of concern is the absence of clear standards for the assessment of evidence. Article 6 provides that if a defendant or his or her defence counsel allege that the defendant‘s pre-trial confession was obtained illegally ―the court shall request that he or she provide relevant leads or evidence with respect to the alleged illegal obtaining of evidence, such as the person(s), time, place, manner, and content.‖. It reportedly does not specify which of these are necessary and/or sufficient for the court to make a determination for the defendant‘s claim. Article 7 is similarly unclear regarding the nature of the evidence that is necessary and/or sufficient for a prosecutor to provide to show the court that a confession was in fact obtained legally. - Of further concern is the length of time by which a prosecutor may delay a trial for further investigation or in order to obtain additional evidence to demonstrate that a confession was obtained legally. The articles in question, articles 7, 8 and 9, do not specify time limits for such postponement. Moreover, the court is required to agree to such a postponement requested by the prosecutor. If the defence makes a