16. Nevertheless, torture and other ill-treatment for the purpose of obtaining confessions persist in several OSCE countries. This may be, in part, because confessions are seen as the “best” form of evidence, despite the links between an overreliance on confessions and the systemic use of torture or ill-treatment. In several OSCE countries, the Soviet-era criminal justice principle that confessions are the “king” or “queen” of evidence, at the expense of other forms, is still the general rule.38 17. In one South-Eastern Europe OSCE participating State, although a suspect cannot be convicted on the sole basis of their own confession, they can be convicted on the sole basis of the testimony of a “secret witness”.39 Difficulties in alleging this evidence has been obtained by the torture of a third-party are explored later in this document. The use of secret witness testimony in itself, however, raises significant concerns about its compatibility with international human rights standards.40 Legal and procedural safeguards afforded to suspects 18. Where safeguards are in place, but in the view of police there is no viable investigative alternative to coercion and torture, police are often incentivized to sidestep these safeguards in order to obtain a confession from a suspect.41 In one Central Asian participating State, although suspects have the right to a lawyer from the moment of arrest and before interrogation,42 reports suggest that, because confessions are generally seen as the only way to obtain evidence needed to secure a conviction, police tend to sidestep safeguards, including the right of access to a lawyer, in order to obtain confessions. In 2018, CSOs in the country reported that “[m]ost allegations of torture and other ill-treatment concern the time between the arrest and the placing of the suspect in a temporary police detention 38 39 40 41 42 18 Side Event on Coercion and Criminal Justice, Expert Fora for Criminal Justice in Central Asia in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan 27 November 18; International Commission of Jurists, “Independence of the Legal Profession in Central Asia”, (2013), p. 56. Questionnaire response Human Rights Association (Turkey) (2019). In Nedim Şener v. Turkey and Şık v. Turkey (Nos. 38270/11 and 53413/11), the European Court on Human Rights found a violation of Article 5 para. 4 and considered transparency and capacity to examine documents and testimony crucial to challenge the lawfulness of detention. The Court made a factual determination that the accusations against both defendants were based mainly on information provided by third parties and not by the defendants themselves. Then, the Court concluded that neither of the two defendants nor their lawyers had the possibility of challenging the allegations against them as the key items of evidence were not revealed due to the governments claims of confidentiality. This document does not discuss the safeguards provided to witnesses or victims in criminal investigations. Code of Criminal Procedure of Tajikistan Article 46(4).