E/CN.4/1999/63/Add.2 page 15 the rule of law and respect for human rights and international treaties and, to this end, to request that a representative of the Office of the Public Prosecutor be present. 71. The time limit for bringing the detained person before a judge is 15 days, but in cases involving the offence of treason, it may be doubled, despite a provision to the contrary in the 1993 Constitution. The competent judge, the public prosecutor and the military court (in cases of treason) only have to be “notified” within 24 hours of the arrest, which is not what article 9, paragraph 3, of the Covenant or principle 11 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under any Form of Detention or Imprisonment require. Moreover, the National Police has the power to order the prisoner held incommunicado. 72. In areas where there are no representatives of the police, the Armed Forces may arrest suspects but have no power of investigation. But according to testimony that has been heard, the Armed Forces have often taken the place of the National Police and hold detainees for long periods. The allegations of torture relate to this period, as indicated by the Special Rapporteur on torture, Mr. Nigel Rodley, in his most recent reports (E/CN.4/1996/35, paras. 124-136, and E/CN.4/1997/7, para. 157), in which he cautiously welcomes measures designed to put an end to impunity. The same concern was expressed by the Human Rights Committee (A/51/40, para. 354). The cases of Luis Armando Quevedo (No. 86-93, Lambayeque High Court), Primogénito Losada and others (No. 110-93, Lambayeque), Gumercindo Tolentino (No. 755-94, Junín High Court) and others show that torture has been widespread, but has become less so recently. 73. Initially, during police interrogation the detained person did not have a lawyer, who “shall be able to intervene only from the time when the detained person makes a statement in the presence of the representative of the Office of the Public Prosecutor”, which could be up to 15 days after the arrest. This was a breach of the rules and of principle 17 of the Body of Principles. Act No. 26.447 provides that persons accused of the offence of terrorism have the right to appoint a defence counsel of their choosing from the start of the police investigation, and that counsel can be present during the statement to the police; this is clearly a big step forward. 74. The “statement” or extrajudicial declaration is made at this stage. The lawyer and the representative of the Office of the Public Prosecutor should be present. In practice, according to complaints by NGOs and lawyers, the participation of the Office of the Public Prosecutor is particularly deficient. In the provinces, it is rare. An investigation by a reputable human rights defence organization states that 87 per cent of prisoners said that they saw no public prosecutor during the police investigation. 75. The investigation ends with the sworn statement (if a person has been detained) or the report (if no one has been detained), by means of which the court and the Office of the Public Prosecutor are informed of the steps taken. The sworn statement or report does not require the Office of the Public Prosecutor to bring a charge or the judges to hand down a sentence. The police often assign cases to the wrong court, one which does not have jurisdiction (see para. 51).