of the formal investigation. Thus, more than 83% of the respondents said that they did not have effective participation of a lawyer during their police detention. Though not part of the formal criminal proceedings, the 24-hour police detention in Bulgaria is the period when most of the evidence against the detainees is gathered. Article 10, para. 1 of the MIA provides for the possibility of the police operatives to conduct “explorative interviews” with the detainees. Although the statements obtained during these interviews (often under torture or other forms of coercion) cannot be used as such in the subsequent formal criminal proceedings, the evidence derived as a result is valid if properly processed. E.g., the operatives torture a detainee to confess a theft and ask where he/she hid the stolen items. After confession, they conduct a search in the framework of the formal criminal proceedings. The items found are valid evidence, which can be relied on by the court in the subsequent proceedings. Moreover, faced with the high probability of a conviction, the detainee repeats the confession obtained during the “exploratory interview” after the opening of the formal criminal proceedings in order to get a more lenient treatment and sentence and refrains from complaining against his/her torturers. Concluding remarks The problem with the use of evidence obtained through torture and other forms of coercion in Bulgaria is serious. It is multi-dimensional, rooted in the legislation, in the established methods to investigate crimes, in the attitudes of the law-enforcement officials, as well as in those of the public in general. It has to be dealt with in all of these fields. As a first step, all actions involving a person detained by the police should be made part of the formal criminal proceedings with all the necessary safeguards. No “exploratory interview” should be allowed without the presence of a lawyer. There should be systematic video recording of interrogations of suspects by the police, as well as obligatory medical checks by an independent doctor upon police detention. There should also be a wider legislative prohibition on the use of derivative evidence, obtained through any form of ill-treatment. All this requires a comprehensive reform of the legislation. Despite repeated recommendations by the CPT, the UN Committee against Torture and other international bodies, this has not happened yet and there does not seem to be sufficient political will to implement such a reform at present. The oversight of police detention by independent monitors should also be strengthened. The National Preventive Mechanism in Bulgaria is a modest operation, insufficiently staffed and poorly funded. It does not have the capacity to visit all police stations in Bulgaria, as well as other places of detention where it can obtain information on police ill-treatment. Human rights NGOs should be allowed to visit places of police detention and carry out effective monitoring. A good practice is the establishment of independent complaint boards against unlawful actions by the police at the level of each territorial police department. 38