E/CN.4/1996/35/Add.2 page 16 persons facing trial and to the victims of possible abuses. The system places in the hands of the judge hearing a case responsibility for both the examination proceedings and the judgement, as well as authority to indict, a feature which is generally considered to exclude any possibility of an adversarial process and which jeopardizes the principle of impartiality. The judge conducts the trial through pre-trial proceedings which are held in camera, during which all the items of evidence are incorporated into the case and during the examination stage of which the suspect is subject to a system of supervision which frequently entails deprivation of freedom. The gathering of evidence is almost exclusively performed by the police; this could hardly be otherwise in view of the concentration of responsibility. Although the police are under the authority of the judge while they perform this task (and also of the Government Procurator in the second instance), in practice the supervision exercised is merely formal, and the police operate with a large degree of autonomy. The absence of a prosecution service to direct the investigation and supervise the activities of the police is one reason why the latter enjoy excessive autonomy, which may be a contributing factor to the use of violence during the initial phase of criminal proceedings. 13/ On completion of pre-trial proceedings, the judge issues the committal order. The actual trial phase then begins, during which the defence has an opportunity to bring forward evidence and arguments in writing. On conclusion of this procedure the same judge hands down his sentence. 57. In view of the features described above, the absence of a defending counsel during the first phase of the pre-trial proceedings is particularly detrimental. As C. Riego notes, with regard to the statement to the police and the answer to the charges before the judge "which are the first contacts between the suspect and the criminal prosecution service, the lack of defence is aggravated by the possibility that the suspect’s statements will be taken as substantive evidence in the trial. This is perfectly clear where the statement to the judge is concerned, and no restrictions apply. In the case of the statement to the police, there are tighter restrictions, although in the end article 484 of the Code of Penal Procedure authorizes the judge to use the statement as the basis for his judgement. The problem posed by the exclusion of professional counsel from these initial proceedings thus has far greater consequences than one might assume, because on account of the nature of our judicial system these steps might prove to have a decisive bearing on the final outcome of the trial; consequently the exclusion of counsel at this stage may actually prevent the possibility of effective defence during the rest of the trial". 14/ 58. The shortcomings of the existing system have led the Government to undertake a set of reforms, as part of which, on 9 June 1995, it submitted to the National Congress a bill for a new Code of Penal Procedure introducing an accusatorial and oral system. A cornerstone of this system would be the establishment of a prosecution service, for which the relevant regulations are being drawn up. This prosecution service would conduct criminal proceedings under the authority of a supervisory magistrate, thereby preserving the impartiality of the trial judge. According to a study by the National Compensation and Reconciliation Agency, "the judge, who would be released from the burden of directing the investigation (a task to which, moreover, he frequently fails to devote sufficient time on account of his other duties) could thus devote greater attention to ensuring that the investigation takes