through habeas corpus. Such procedures should function effectively and expeditiously; who is arrested or detained by any law providing for preventive detention; Whereas safeguards were contained in preventive detention legislation and the right of the Supreme Court to issue habeas corpus writs with respect to preventive detention; the Special Rapporteur observed that these safeguards were not effective. 1974 Evidence Act declares statements made under torture inadmissible; however torture was systematically practiced to extract confessions. Non-governmental sources: In 2006 and 2005, 64 and 640 cases of habeas corpus, respectively, were lodged at the Supreme Court. While the denial of detainees’ rights to habeas corpus to challenge their detention is not as serious as during the conflict, concerns remain as to delays in bringing detainees before a court within 24 hours as stipulated by the Constitution. 119 Non-governmental sources: In many cases lawyers are not present when detainees initially make “confessions”, which are often extracted after beatings, threats or other forms of pressure. Police openly admit that they rely heavily on confessions for criminal investigations, and that they constitute the main and sometimes almost the exclusive part of an investigation. Reportedly, some government has, however, prepared a draft bill to criminalize disappearances and to set up a Commission of Inquiry into Enforced Disappearances. The current draft has been criticized, including by OHCHR, for being inconsistent with international standards in a number of respects. Misrepresentations by police and other state officials, apparently to hide detainees or cover-up the fact that their detention is illegal, continue to present an obstacle to the effective functioning of the habeas corpus remedy. Weak sanctions for perjury and contempt of court are contributing factors in relation to the way in which the authorities respond to habeas corpus petitions. Despite obvious and repeated lies and misinformation from officials in court (including by the Nepal Army during the conflict), no one has ever been prosecuted or otherwise disciplined by the courts for perjury. Non-governmental sources: Detainees rarely, if ever, have a lawyer present during interrogation. If they are represented at all, their lawyers usually become involved in their case only after the case has been filed at court. Judges do not generally restrict the admissibility of evidence obtained during interrogation outside of the presence of a lawyer. Confessions remain the central piece of evidence in most cases. Incidents of A/HRC/13/39/Add.6 (g) Confessions made by persons in custody without the presence of a lawyer and that are not confirmed before a judge not be admissible as evidence against the persons who made the confession. Serious consideration should be given to video and audio taping of all persons present during proceedings in interrogation rooms; from the conflict, based on the work of its Task Force set up for a group of petitions of habeas corpus. As of January 2008, the ruling had yet to be implemented. A credible commission of inquiry had yet to be set up.