iv. Judicial scrutiny of evidence 95.  Many jurisdictions prohibit the judge from independently scrutinising the evidence supporting the conviction (for example, the Philippines, with its US-influenced criminal justice system). However other jurisdictions require judicial authorities to satisfy themselves that the conviction is supported by evidence beyond the defendant’s admission of guilt. Chile, for example, requires the prosecution to adduce evidence beyond the facts in the indictment to which the defendant agrees as part of the trial waiver (known as “procedimiento abreviado”) in order to sustain a conviction. In Macedonia, a judge can reject the trial waiver (known as a “plea agreement”) if the evidence does not support the charges to which the defendant has pleaded guilty. 96.  Judicial scrutiny of the evidence tends to be more comprehensive in systems that utilise abbreviated trials, such as Finland, Germany, Romania and Russia. In these systems, guilty pleas or confessions may constitute one piece of evidence that may be considered by the judge, but is not necessarily dispositive in itself. In Argentina, there are multiple levels of judicial review available: after the request for a summary trial, the court evaluates the evidence and fairness of the proceedings and either convicts or acquits the defendant. However, parties can also reach partial agreement, in which they settle exclusively the facts of the offence and request a trial regarding the guilt and penalty of the established facts. 97.  However, how meaningful this scrutiny is differs substantially between and within jurisdictions. In Serbia, one respondent complained that evidence admitted in relation to trial waivers (known as “plea agreements”) was not subject to the same standards as it would be to establish guilt in trial; for example, the court may hear the statements of co-defendants without allowing cross-examination. In Romania, the trial waiver system (known as the “abbreviated trial”) is described in the survey as a largely formalistic process of validating the conviction rather than an independent evaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence. Conversely, in Germany, judges in cases involving trial waivers (known as “Absprachen”) may take a more active role in examining evidence in order to verify the confession of the defendant. 98. In New South Wales in Australia, while judges do not engage in independent scrutiny of the evidence in cases involving trial waivers (known as “guilty pleas”), prosecutors must consult with victims and police to ensure that any agreed-upon statement of facts arising from charge negotiations constitutes a fair and accurate account of the objective criminality of the offender. There is, therefore, another mechanism in a common law context in which the evidence, or at least the agreed facts, is evaluated. Guidelines for prosecutors also preclude them from engaging in trial waivers where the evidence would be distorted, or where the accused maintains his/her innocence.101 v. Judicial scrutiny of procedure 99.  It is much more common for systems to require some level of judicial scrutiny over the procedure, most often through a mechanism by which judges assure themselves that a trial waiver is given voluntarily. This can be achieved through US-style allocution, in which the judge may directly question the defendant. An allocution, including an in-court confession, features in the Finnish trial waiver system, for example. In India and in Malaysia, the judge may interview the defendant regarding the voluntariness of his trial waiver (known in both jurisdictions as “plea bargaining”) in camera, rather than in open court, to reduce the level of intimidation the defendant may feel speaking before the public prosecutor. 100.  However it is notable that no similar mechanism exists, for example, in England and Wales despite other systemic similarities to the US. Indeed in many jurisdictions the judge has a duty, either explicit or established through constitutional or other constraints, to be satisfied that the trial waiver is being entered into voluntarily, but no specific mechanism for ensuring this is provided for in practice. 101. An additional opportunity for scrutiny of the procedure lies in the possibility of appealing against convictions following trial waivers on procedural grounds. In some jurisdictions, the ability to do so is somewhat or entirely limited, as in Macedonia and New Zealand. However, many jurisdictions do allow for complaints of some nature after a trial waiver. Waivers of appeal rights in Germany are considered to be unlawful and can be overcome on appeal, according to our respondents, and Georgia, for example, provides for a 15-day appeal period for defendants who consider their procedural rights to have been violated. In Chile, defendants may, in limited cases, waive their right to a trial on the alleged facts while still challenging that the activity constitutes a criminal offence.102 101. Despite this guideline, defendants may plead guilty whilst maintaining innocence if they provide specific written instructions to that effect to counsel. See R v. Allison [2003] QCA 125 at para. 26 per Jerrard JA. 102. The People vs Lavanderos 16 de julio de 2005, Rol 532-2005-RPP. 54.