E/CN.4/2003/68/Add.2 page 9 2. Assistance by a lawyer 23. Article 53 CPC provides that “… when the accused or defendant is kept in custody the defender has the right to meet with him one to one without limitation of the frequency and the length of the meetings”. According to the law, meetings with lawyers must thus be confidential and unlimited. In practice, this provision is said to be widely ignored and officials in charge of places of detention acknowledged that any meeting with a lawyer must be formally approved by the investigator or the procurator in the case. 24. Article 50 CPC further provides that “… the participation of the defender in the case is guaranteed by the interrogator, investigator, procurator or court. In those cases where it is not possible for the chosen defender to take up the case within 24 hours, the interrogator, investigator, procurator or court has to offer the suspect, accused or defendant or his/her relatives another defender or to contact a lawyers’ bureau, association or firm [which would] appoint a defender. The defender chosen by the suspect, accused or defendant has the right to join the case at any time.” Similarly, article 111 CPC specifies that if the suspect/accused cannot hire a legal counsel of her/his choice, the investigator has the obligation to provide her/him with a State-appointed lawyer. 3. Confession 25. Article 235 CC states that “forcing a confession, i.e. the use of psychological or physical pressure on a suspect, defendant, a witness or a victim or an expert by way of threats, blows, beatings, ill-treatment/tormenting (istyazaniya), the infliction of physical suffering, light or medium-level bodily harm or injury or other illegal actions carried out by the interrogator, investigator, or procurator, with the aim of forcing confessions, is punished by detention of up to six months or the deprivation of liberty of up to five years. The same action, when resulting in grievous consequences, is punished by deprivation of liberty from five to eight years.” Article 22 CPC also provides that “obtaining testimony of a suspect, accused person, defendant, victim, witness or any other party to a case by the use of force, threats, violation of their rights or other illegal means is prohibited”. According to legal practitioners, article 95 is furthermore said to provide that no evidence received by inadmissible means may be considered as evidence in court. Unlike statements renouncing legal assistance, confessions do not have to be made in the presence of a lawyer to be admissible in court. 26. The Special Rapporteur notes with satisfaction that in May 1997, the Supreme Court issued a plenary court decision stating that “any evidence obtained unlawfully shall be devoid of evidential value and cannot form the basis of a judgement”. According to the Minister of Justice, the Supreme Court had also issued a directive stating that confessions do not necessarily establish guilt, in the absence of other objective proof or evidence. Without providing the Special Rapporteur with any specific examples, he stated that there were quite a few examples of courts rejecting evidence obtained as a result of torture. The Acting Chairman of the Supreme Court drew the attention of the Special Rapporteur to article 463 CPC which provides that admission of guilt during investigation or in court can be part of the verdict, only if objectively confirmed by other corroborative evidence.