E/CN.4/1992/17/Àdd.l page 10 37. The Special Rapporteur also received information according to which it was not exceptional for a person to be arrested by the military and detained for a certain period in military barracks before being handed over to the police. If this transfer does not take place within 24 hours after arrest, such detention is clearly illegal. Evidence gathered during such an illegal detention is obtained in an irregular way. It was submitted that such evidence nevertheless finds its way into the file and that there is no provision which forbids the judge from taking such evidence into consideration. 38. The Special Rapporteur was also informed that it was not exceptional in areas where there was civil unrest, for people to be arrested by the military, kept in detention for a certain period during which they were interrogated (sometimes under torture), and subsequently released. Such practices which, during the existence of KOPKAMTIB, were not in violation of the law, are manifestly illegal at present. Pre-trial proceedings could provide a remedy, but it was said that in practice such remedies were rarely used, especially as under such circumstances access to a lawyer was virtually impossible. 39. As was said earlier, the right to have a lawyer and to be visited by one's relatives must be deemed to be an important barrier against the practice of torture. It was submitted, however, that in view of the extreme scarcity of defence lawyers this preventive mechanism did not function properly. During his visit, the Special Rapporteur talked to persons who were serving sentences of more than 10 years. Some of them had seen their lawyers only once or twice before their trial or had had no legal assistance at all. It was also said that often lawyers were not informed of a forthcoming interrogation or were only informed very late, thereby making it virtually impossible for them to attend the interrogation. 40. It was also said that although in theory KUHAP afforded a suspect all the protection he needed, in practice such guarantees were not effective since the machinery to implement them was lacking. In this respect attention was drawn to the role of the judiciary. It was said that the judiciary had little understanding of the role it could play in combating torture by ensuring that those who practise torture are punished. According to these sources, in spite of the fact that the judiciary had no role to play in the investigation proceedings, it could be much more alert when, during the trial, allegations of torture were made by the defence. 41. In his general report the Special Rapporteur elaborated on the role the judiciary has to play in the struggle against torture. He therefore deeply regrets that the President of the Supreme Court, whom he had asked to see, was of the opinion that a meeting with him would not be useful since torture practices concerned mainly the executive branch. The Special Rapporteur can only conclude that such a reaction seems to confirm the impression that, in Indonesia, the judiciary is not aware of the important function it has in suppressing and eradicating torture. A vigilant judiciary is indispensable if the struggle against torture is to be successful. 42. Another element which has drawn the attention of the Special Rapporteur is the fact that the public prosecutor's office has no active role in criminal investigations. In most countries criminal investigations are carried out