CAT/C/75 page 71 329. However, most public prosecutors’ offices and courts do not yet have a corps of interpreters who can immediately help give effect to this right, and the situation is even more complicated when indigenous persons are detained outside their communities of origin. In addition, the wide variety of indigenous languages and variants thereof spoken in the country often makes it difficult to find the right interpreter. To determine how well this safeguard is really respected would require a national survey indicating percentages, frequency and arrangements for the use of interpreters. 330. With regard to the recommendation made in paragraph 220 (g) to restrict the application of military law to offences of official conduct and introduce the necessary legal provisions for civilian courts to try offences against human rights, particularly torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, committed by military personnel, even when it is claimed that such offences were service-related, it should be pointed out that, according to the Constitution, the military courts are already subject to review by the ordinary Federal courts through the remedy of amparo. 331. As regards paragraph 221 (b), (c) and (d) and the deadline for placing detainees at the disposal of the courts, article 16, fifth paragraph, of the Constitution sets a maximum deadline, usually of 48 hours. This gives the Public Prosecutor’s Office enough time to conduct inquiries when it has a detainee; this is only logical, since the detainee will furnish the evidence required for a case to be submitted to court, especially when there is a preliminary investigation and a detainee. It is, moreover, a shorter deadline than that allowed the court under article 19 of the Constitution to assess the weight of evidence gathered in a preliminary investigation. Above all, the time allowed is to the suspect’s benefit and to the benefit of his right to present evidence during interrogation. The definition of a deadline nevertheless restricts the time the authorities have to investigate the offence, and any breach must be punishable by law. 332. It is also logical that, in cases referred to by law as organized crime, the Public Prosecutor’s Office may double the time limit because the work it has to do will be more complicated given the greater seriousness of the offence and the greater problems involved in properly conducting an investigation, not only to demonstrate that a crime has been committed and link the accused to it, but also to establish the accused’s relationship to the other elements of the criminal organization since organized crime has become increasingly complex and sophisticated. 333. The time limit for bringing a detainee before the Public Prosecutor’s Office is also determined by various factors. 334. The report says that one of the factors also contributing to the persistence of torture is the lack of judicial supervision while detainees are at the disposal of the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the absence of effective monitoring in places of detention by an authority other than the services of which such places form part. It is, however, obvious that under the Mexican legal system a suspect in detention or being held by the Public Prosecutor can, even without a specific procedure for the purpose, apply for amparo and, as far as his personal liberty is concerned, thus remain at the disposal of the amparo court even though, for the purposes of the criminal