CAT/C/75 page 76 59 This statement is illustrated by the following ratio decidendi: The title and text of the decision on page 79, volume 74, February 1994, ninth term, Federal Judicial Weekly, read: “CONFESSION BY THE ACCUSED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL POLICE, CONFIRMED BEFORE THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE AND DENIED BEFORE THE ORDINARY COURT, NOT BASED ON ANY OTHER ITEM OF EVIDENCE. PROBATIVE VALUE OF. If the confession of an accused person which is made before the judicial police and confirmed before the Public Prosecutor’s Office, but not before the ordinary court, is not supported by any other evidence, it cannot be more than mere circumstantial evidence because it lacks sufficient grounds to have full probative value and is rendered flimsy by the suspicion that it was actually obtained by means of violence, if the accused person so alleges; it is thus sufficient for a detention order, but not to establish guilt. TWENTIETH CIRCUIT COURT.” The separate opinion on page 323, volume XII, November 1993, eighth term, Federal Judicial Weekly, reads: “CONFESSION. LACKS PROBATIVE VALUE WHEN MADE BEFORE THE JUDICIAL POLICE AND CONFIRMED BEFORE AN OFFICIAL OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE. The confession must be made before an official of the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office, not before the judicial police, which may only make reports, not obtain confessions. Thus, even if a petitioner has confirmed to the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office a confession made to the judicial police, the confession lacks probative value because, according to article 287, section II and last paragraph, of the Federal Code of Criminal Procedure, it must “be made” before an official of the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office or the court hearing the case, which are the authorities expressly empowered to receive it; consequently, confirming a confession made in the presence of the judicial police before the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office does not make it valid. NINETEENTH CIRCUIT COURT No. 2.” The separate opinion on page 425, volume XIII, May 1994, eighth term, Federal Judicial Weekly, headed “STATEMENT MADE IN THE ABSENCE OF DEFENCE COUNSEL OR PERSON TRUSTED BY SUSPECT, VALUE OF”, reads: Although it is quite true that, according to article 125 of the Federal Code of Criminal Procedure, the Public Prosecutor’s Office is empowered, once an investigation is under way, “to summon any persons who may have been involved in the acts under investigation or who appear to have information about such acts to make a statement thereon”, it is also true that when, as part of the preliminary investigation, the official concerned receives a statement which may be a confession because it relates to acts prejudicial to the accused, he must act fully in keeping with the duty imposed by article 127 bis, first paragraph, in relation to article 287, section II, of the Code in question, which is that the right of the accused to appoint counsel or a trusted individual to help him with this statement to the Public Prosecutor’s Office must be respected; if he does not, the statement made to him and any possible confession it may contain to wrongful acts cannot have probative value. Hence if that statement constitutes the chief grounds for the application for a detention order and the remaining facts in the case file are in themselves insufficient to establish that the petitioner is guilty of the crime(s) ascribed to him, the detention order so issued violates the individual safeguards laid down in article 16 of the Federal Constitution.