CAT/C/75 page 46 least a considerable part of the territory of the country in question. Torture may in fact be of a systematic character without resulting from the direct intention of a Government. It may be the consequence of factors which the Government has difficulty in controlling, and its existence may indicate a discrepancy between policy as determined by the central Government and its implementation by the local administration. Inadequate legislation which in practice allows room for the use of torture may also add to the systematic nature of this practice.” 219. Various factors help to explain the persistence of the practice of torture by police in the State party, most of which have been mentioned in this report: (a) The broad exceptions to the constitutional guarantee requiring a warrant before an arrest can be made;52 (b) The length of the time limits for handing detainees over to a court authority;53 (c) The widespread disregard for the accused’s right not to be compelled to make a statement, in accordance with article 20 of the Constitution; and for the legal provisions prohibiting the police from obtaining confessions, which are circumvented by submitting such confessions as formal statements made to a public prosecutor; (d) The lack of judicial supervision during the period detainees are at the disposal of the Public Prosecutor’s Office (in effect, in police custody) and the absence of any procedures for the effective supervision of places of detention by an authority other than the services administering them; (e) The restrictions on detainees’ right to a defence - they are usually not allowed to meet in private with trusted counsel from the beginning of their detention or to receive advice or assistance from counsel before and while making their statement to the public prosecutor - and the quantitative and qualitative shortcomings of the system of court-appointed defence counsel;54 (f) The impunity of police officers who practise torture: this seems to be the general rule rather than the exception. The internal oversight services within the police forces themselves are reticent and ineffective and, since the Public Prosecutor’s Office has the sole right to bring criminal proceedings, any complaints of torture must be investigated by that Office and there is no remedy available to complainants if it refuses to bring a criminal action or, in the exceptional cases when it does so, to challenge the use of grounds other than torture as the basis for the action;55 (g) Disregard for the provisions excluding from the body of evidence any statement or evidence obtained by torture or other similar coercive methods. In practice, forced confessions are not usually declared invalid in proceedings when the Public Prosecutor’s Office cites them as grounds for the charges;56 (h) The inadequate training given to the Public Prosecutor’s Office and judicial police personnel, which, on the one hand, leads to inefficient and ineffective criminal investigations that identify the suspects in only a small proportion of the cases reported and, on the other hand, encourages the use of torture and coercion to obtain confessions and evidence;57