CAT/C/CHN/CO/5 Coerced confessions and exclusionary procedures 32. While welcoming the 2012 amendment to the Criminal Procedure Law, which explicitly excludes the use of illegal evidence extracted by torture at any stage of the criminal proceedings (see para. 4 (a) above), the Committee remains concerned at reports that courts often shift the burden of proof back to defendants during the exclusionary procedures and dismiss lawyers’ requests to exclude the admissibility of confessions. In that connection, the Committee is concerned about the lack of statistical data provided by the State party on the instances in which the exclusionary rule has been invoked and the outcome of those instances (art. 15). 33. The State party should adopt effective measures to strictly enforce the new legal provisions and guarantee that coerced confessions or statements are inadmissible in practice, except when invoked against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made. In this respect, the Committee calls on the State party to: (a) Ensure that, where there is an allegation that a statement was made under torture, the burden of proof effectively remains on the procuratorate and the courts. A forensic medical examination should be immediately ordered and the necessary steps should be taken to ensure that the allegations are promptly and properly investigated; (b) Adopt guidelines on what constitutes illegally obtained evidence, which should include prolonged interrogation and deprivation of sleep, and ensure that judges receive training on how to identify the various actions that constitute torture, including psychological ones and how to initiate investigations of such cases; (c) Deliver a strong message, through the appropriate channels, to judges and procuratorates, reminding them of their obligation to take relevant action whenever they have reasons to believe that a person brought before them may have been subjected to torture or ill-treatment. Audiovisual recording of interrogations 34. While appreciating the amended provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law requiring the video recording of interrogations in major criminal cases, and the implementation of a system of audiovisual recording in areas where cases are handled, the Committee regrets that the audiovisual recording of interrogations is not mandatory in all cases. It also expresses concern with regard to the independence of the auditing system of the recordings, which is carried out by the legal department of the public security organ. In this regard, the Committee notes with concern reported cases in which the police have selectively recorded parts of interrogations or incurred into acts of torture outside the video surveillance. It is also concerned over reports that meetings between lawyers and suspects are often monitored, despite being prohibited by law (art. 15). 35. The State party should: (a) Adopt the necessary measures to ensure the compulsory video recording of all criminal interrogations in their entirety. Audiovisual footage should be kept for a period sufficient for it to be used as evidence; (b) Guarantee that complete audiovisual footage of the interrogation and related written documents are systematically transmitted to the relevant procuratorate, and a copy is made available to the defence and the court; (c) Exclude from proceedings evidence obtained in breach of the lawyerclient privilege; 10