E/CN.4/2002/77/Add.2 page 18 non-renewable time limit on police custody (art. 25 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), anyone in police custody must be brought before a judge before this time limit expires (art. 79, para. 1). It is the judge who decides whether a person in custody should continue to be detained or be freed on bail or otherwise. Detainees may be remanded for up to seven days, but the court can extend this period - if the inquiry so warrants or in the interests of justice - right up to the trial (art. 79, para. 2). The decision to continue pre-trial detention may be challenged in the court which handed it down (art. 79, para. 3), and this remedy may be exercised monthly. In the case of crimes against State security, provision is made for indefinite detention - as we have emphasized - under article 79, paragraph 3, of the Criminal Code, which states: “In crimes prejudicing State security, whether from inside or outside the country, as provided in the Criminal Code detention for an indefinite period shall be authorized.” 58. During its visits to police stations and the detention facilities of the Criminal Investigation Department, the delegation ascertained that the time limit for police custody was generally adhered to, and most of the persons questioned stated that they had been brought before a judge within the time frame prescribed by law. 59. However, some problems have been noted in connection with the extension of pre-trial detention. Nearly everybody questioned stated that every seven days they were taken before the court and their pre-trial detention was systematically extended unless they posted bail. In criminal cases, it seems that the judge sometimes extends pre-trial detention without setting eyes on the detainees, who do not even leave the courthouse holding cells to be brought before the court. 60. Because confessions to the police are not admissible as evidence (art. 128, para. 3), they are corroborated under a procedure whereby the police bring before the investigating judge (termed the “confessions judge” by detainees) accused persons who have confessed to the crime with which they have been charged so that they can repeat their confessions. This procedure, which permits the police to use confessions in court as evidence for the prosecution, is pernicious insofar as a lawyer is not always present at this stage of proceedings and the accused is in the hands of the police. 5. The Bar (and legal aid) 61. The legal profession is currently regulated by Legislative Decree No. 26 of 1980. The Working Group reports that this instrument does not conform to the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers adopted by the United Nations in 1990, especially principles 24 and 25 on professional associations of lawyers and principles 26-29 on disciplinary proceedings. The Bar does not exist as a professional organization. Candidates who satisfy the conditions established by the Legislative Decree must apply to be included on the roll of pupil barristers kept by the Minister of Justice, who may accept or refuse their applications on the advice of a commission made up of the chief justice of the High Court (who chairs the commission), the Minister of Justice, a High Court judge and a lawyer appointed by the Minister of Justice. This same commission is empowered to evaluate the ability of the pupil barrister and the Minister of Justice orders his registration on the Bar roll if the period of pupillage is validated.