from humanitarian aid. During 2009, the Legal Medical Centre has developed some proposals for several external assistance projects, with the purpose of strengthening the existing laboratory capacities and establishing a genetic laboratory within the Centre – these proposals were submitted for consideration to UNDP, the Government of Japan, etc. At the same time, due to financial constraints, it has been impossible to increase the financing of the Legal Medical Centre. The Legal Medical Centre has undertaken inter alia a training course for medical-legal experts on the investigation of torture cases and other ill-treatment. Non-governmental sources: Out of 554 complaints only one perpetrator was sentenced to imprisonment for torture in 2009; thus, the investigation cannot be regarded to be efficient, operative and impartial. Forensic doctors try to cover up torture, rather than document it. (b) Safeguards and prevention i) Reduce the period of police custody to a time limit in line with international standards (maximum 48 hours), after which transfer the detainees to a pre-trial facility, where no further unsupervised contact with the interrogator or investigator should be permitted; ii) Ensure that no confessions made by persons in custody without the presence of a Police detention of minors could be prolonged by 30 days up to 4 months; Prolongation of police detention was decided by the investigating judge upon request of the prosecutor; De-facto, most detainees were kept in police custody for several weeks/months and regularly returned there for “further investigation” or for their trial or appeal, which made them vulnerable to reprisals; 153 Many allegations that confessions obtained under torture were not excluded as evidence during court proceedings, in contravention of the national legislation; numerous reports Observations of the Special Rapporteur during his visit in September 2009: The NPM still faces a number of challenges: firstly, the legal basis for this mechanism is rather ambiguous, which has led to different interpretations regarding which entity constitutes the NPM. From the side of the Ministry of Justice, it is argued that the Parliamentary Ombudsperson is the NPM. However, even the Ombudsman in charge, as well as other relevant actors, including international bodies such as the Council of Europe’s Commissioner on Human Rights, have clearly stated that the NPM is comprised of the Consultative Council, under the chair of the Parliamentary Ombudsperson. The Special Rapporteur reiterates that only the latter interpretation is in line with OPCAT and the Paris Principles. Another problem is that although the NPM is meant to be comprised of 11 members, currently only six members serve on this mandate (including the Ombudsman). Finally, and closely linked to the above, is the issue of financial resources allocated to the NPM. In this respect, the Special Rapporteur wishes to emphasize that although international organisations have indicated their willingness to support the NPM, including adequate pay for its members, the State has the primary obligation to provide sufficient resources. Non-governmental sources: Although the law requires that persons be transferred within 72 hours, in practice, persons are held in police A/HRC/13/39/Add.6 lawyer that are not confirmed before a judge are admissible as evidence against the persons who made the confession; Shift the burden of proof to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the confession was not obtained under any kind of The law provided for a limit of 72 hours of custody, after which the person is to be brought before a judge, which could be prolonged by 6 to 12 months depending on the crime;