beatings and ill-treatment during interrogation are widespread. In addition, it is very common in Nepal for detainees to be forced to sign statements (whether “confessions” or other documents) without being able to read them beforehand. This is sometimes due to illiteracy but mainly because the police refuse to give detainees an opportunity to read their statement. Further, although the prosecution carries the burden of ultimately proving a defendant’s guilt, each defendant has to “persuade” the court of the “specific fact” that a statement was not freely given (Section 28, State Cases Act). In practice, this means that forced confessions are routinely accepted unless the defendant is able to produce some compelling evidence demonstrating that coercion or torture took place. In other words, Nepali law reverses the burden of proof and expects detainees to prove that they were in fact tortured. In addition, the law is not clear as to the exact procedure to be used by courts in order to establish whether or not a confession was extracted under torture. In the course of detention monitoring, OHCHR-Nepal documented 93 cases of torture and ill-treatment, as well as a number of cases of unlawful detention. Reports of ill-treatment sometimes amounting to torture are widespread especially during A/HRC/13/39/Add.6 120 members of the police have even implied that if they did not use force they would not be able to obtain a confession. It is common for defendants to inform courts at the time of committal hearings that they did not give statements voluntarily, at which point such statements are often ruled out as evidence. However, in many other cases this does not happen, or the victim is afraid to allege torture or other illtreatment.