E/CN.4/2000/9/Add.3 page 5 this is not a penal measure, but rather an administrative measure for the purposes of identification, but he acknowledged that the law does allow for a person to be held for a 24-hour period for the purposes of identification. 12. Of particular concern to the Special Rapporteur is the fact that the law regulating the conditions of pre-trial detention, Order 0410, which dates from 1974, remains classified. The Minister of State of the Ministry of the Interior informed the Special Rapporteur that a draft law has been presented to Parliament which would be available to the public. In the meantime, the current law, which is secret, remains in effect. 13. Several government interlocutors expressed the view that the pre-trial detention centres should be placed under the authority of the Ministry of Justice, rather than the Ministry of the Interior. Both the Secretary of State of the Ministry of the Interior and the Deputy General Inspector of Police expressed the view that the police should not control pre-trial detention, but both noted that the legislative reforms required to make such a change would be a slow process. The Military Prosecutor was also of this view. In the absence of such change, there are internal techniques to prevent the ill-treatment of detainees. In particular, several interlocutors mentioned the fact that civilian prosecutors may inspect the police lock-ups or prisons at any time. Similarly, the General Inspectorate of Police carries out spot-checks of police lock-ups. However, the Prosecutor General admitted to the Special Rapporteur that the heavy caseloads of the civilian prosecutors has made it more and more difficult to carry out such inspections. The Military Prosecutor also suggested that the problem would “disappear” if the civilian prosecutors were more involved with the supervision of the police. To this end, he noted that the civilian prosecutors should inspect more often and should make spot-checks. The Military Prosecutor also recommended that no suspect should be held without prior authorization from the prosecutor, even for the first 24 hours of detention. Further, defence counsel should be allowed to be present during those first 24 hours. 14. With respect to access to counsel, Romanian law provides that a lawyer must be present throughout the criminal procedures. However, as the Secretary of State of the Ministry of the Interior noted, the criminal procedure does not formally begin until an arrest warrant has been issued by the prosecutor, and therefore, an individual does not have access to a lawyer while being held under a police custody warrant. Police officials invariably informed the Special Rapporteur that a suspect has the right to an attorney at any point and is informed of this right by the police, but most of the detained persons with whom the Special Rapporteur met informed him that they were rarely informed of this right. Indeed, in most cases, an ex officio lawyer was appointed and was only present when the suspect was brought before the prosecutor to make a statement. In several cases, the suspects were not even aware at the time that a lawyer was present, because the ex officio lawyers did not provide any legal advice or guidance. 15. During the course of his mission, the Special Rapporteur received several testimonies from individuals who claimed to be victims of police abuse. The testimonies were taken from detainees, in both police lock-ups and prisons, and from individuals who had been released from custody. The Special Rapporteur does not take a position on the veracity of any one allegation, but does note that there is a consistency in the allegations that leads him to believe that ill-treatment does in fact occur. The testimonies may be summarized as follows.