A/HRC/13/39/Add.5 does not seem particularly appealing. This of course raises not only wider questions regarding the independence and professionalism of judges, but also regarding prosecutors and lawyers who are all under the obligation to act on any allegation of torture. While this issue would certainly require further study, it seems that the institutional separation of judges, prosecutors, police and defence lawyers is often undermined by informal power structures and relationships which are detrimental to the rights of the suspect. 99. The widespread use of evidence obtained under torture includes cases for which suspects have been convicted to death. In Pasir Putih Maximum Security Prison in Indonesia, for example, the vast majority of detainees on death row reported with compelling detail how they were tortured, including by death threats, beatings with hammers, and severe beatings for prolonged period, until they had signed a confession which was later presented at court.59 100. This situation and the fact that under many national criminal laws a confession alone is sufficient to convict a person, one comes to the alarming conclusion that a considerable number of persons are currently unrightfully imprisoned, either because they have not committed the crime they have been accused of or because they are convicted solely on the basis of a confession obtained under torture. 101. In order to rectify this worrying situation several proposals have been made. As a fist but important step, criminal procedure codes should be amended and only accept confessions which are made in the presence of a competent and truly independent lawyer and further confirmed before the judge. Furthermore, confessions alone should never be sufficient for a conviction, but should always require further supportive evidence. The video or audio recording of interrogations has also been a long standing demand by many anti-torture bodies. In light of their increasingly low priced availability it is difficult to see why such technical safeguards cannot be implemented. (iv) Access to a lawyer and legal assistance 102. Access to a lawyer and legal assistance is provided by several international and regional norms, inter alia article 14 ICCPR. While one prime aspect of access to a lawyer and legal aid is the assurance of the right to a fair trial, it is furthermore crucial in terms of preventing abuse. Access to lawyers is a minimum requirement in order to open up places of detention and a contribution to a basic level of transparency. Lawyers are for many detainees the only contact with the outside world. Their absence during extended detention would leave persons deprived of their liberty completely at the mercy of the detaining authority and prone to abuse. With good reason the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights held that in order to uphold the right of an accused not to be compelled to confess guilt and freedom from torture, a person should be only interrogated in the presence of a lawyer or judge.60 103. Given that most cases of abuse take place at the very early stages of detention, immediate access is crucial, a necessity which is also emphasized by the Human Rights Committee. General Comment No. 20 states that the protection of the detainee requires prompt and regular access.61 The CPT further holds that the right to a lawyer is applicable from the very moment a person is obliged to remain with the police. 59 60 61 UN Doc. A/HRC/7/3/Add.7. Report on the Situation of Human Rights of a Segment of the Nicaraguan Population of Miskito Origin, OEA Ser.L/V/11.62, doc.10, rev. 3, 1983, 100. CCPR/C/79/Add.74, 9 April 1997, para. 28.dd.74, para. 28: “all persons arrested must have immediate access to counsel.” 29