91.The SPT considers that the possibility of criminal conviction solely on confession may open the way for certain individuals to abuse the process by trying to extract confessions by ill treating persons deprived of their liberty. In this respect the SPT would like to highlight the prohibition against taking undue advantage of the situation of a detained or imprisoned person for the purpose of compelling him to confess, to incriminate himself otherwise or to testify against any other person and the principle that no detained person while being interrogated shall be subject to violence, threats or methods of interrogation which impair his capacity of decision or his judgement. The SPT considers an evidence-led and not confession-led approach to criminal investigation to be one of the fundamental safeguards,as it would render having recourse to extracting confessions by means of ill-treatment meaningless and thus reduce considerably the risk of ill-treatment of persons in police custody. 92.The SPT welcomes the inclusion, in the new Constitution, of article 52 providing that “no confession shall be admissible in evidence unless made in court by an accused who is in a sound state of mind. No statement or evidence must be obtained from any source by compulsion or by unlawful means and such statement or evidence is inadmissible in evidence”. The SPT also welcomes rule 2.4 of the Draft Rules of Criminal Procedure according to which “when questioning a person under any circumstances, a law enforcement officer must not use torture or intimidation to persuade the person to answer questions or make a confession”. 93. The SPT recommends that the relevant authorities take the necessary steps to ensure the scrupulous application of the new constitutional provision enshrined in article 52. The SPT requests information on the status of the Rules of Criminal Procedure and whether they include the prohibition of the use of torture or ill-treatment in police investigations. The SPT also recommends that police training in investigative methods emphasise the need to proceed from the evidence to the suspect rather than the reverse. The SPT also recommends that before persons deprived of liberty sign a statement to the police, they should be given a copy of the statement and have it read out or have the opportunity to read it. 5. Information on rights as a safeguard against ill-treatment 94.Both the Constitution in force at the time of the visit and other relevant acts remained silent as to information on the rights of the detainee and did not specify what exactly those rights include. 95.During the visits to police stations the delegation saw no written information on rights, and almost all of the detainees interviewed by the delegation reported that they had not been given any information on their rights. Furthermore, on the basis of the interviews with the detainees and from the discussions with the police officers, the delegation gained the impression that, in cases where some information on rights was provided, it was not done in either a consistent or a systematic manner in all police stations. Informing detainees about their rights seemed thus to be left to the discretion of the police officers on duty. 96.It is axiomatic that if people are unaware of their rights, their ability to effectively exercise those rights is adversely affected. The right of persons deprived of liberty to be notified of their rights is a crucial element in the prevention of ill-treatment as well as a prerequisite for effective exercise of due process rights. The SPT welcomes the fact that article 48 of the new Constitution lay down some basic rights of the detainees. 97. The SPT recommends that the relevant legislation be amended to reflect the new Constitution and to spell out, in detail, all the rights of persons deprived of liberty, as well as the right of such persons to be notified of their rights as from the moment of deprivation of liberty and the concomitant obligation of law enforcement officers to ensure such notification and to assist in the exercise of all such rights as from the very outset of deprivation of liberty. 98. The SPT also recommends that a standard notice listing all the rights of persons deprived of liberty should be produced in the languages spoken by detained persons and posted in places of deprivation of liberty where they can be read easily by persons in custody. In addition, the same information should be contained in the form to be signed by each person in custody, and the detainee should be given a copy of that form. 6. Notification of deprivation of liberty as a safeguard against ill-treatment 99.By a note verbale of 22 June 2008 the authorities informed the SPT that under the Regulation on Seeking and Obtaining the Assistance of a Lawyer the investigating officer must inform a family member or relative whom the detainee wishes to inform within 24 hours of arrest and gave their assurances that every effort was made to inform a family member about the arrest within 24 hours. 100.However, in spite of this, several detainees interviewed by the delegation complained about not being able to contact their family members or have them otherwise notified of the custody. The delegation found that, in practice, detainees could not exercise this right unless the police officer investigating their case agreed to it. For example, in Dhoonidhoo Detention Centre a detainee alleged that he was held in the detention 51 days without his family being informed of his custody. Furthermore, even if an investigating officer agreed to notify the family, it seemed that the detainees remained unaware whether their families had actually been notified. 101.A person held without anyone knowing his whereabouts is more vulnerable to abuse. The right to notify someone on the outside about the fact of one’s deprivation of liberty is an important safeguard against ill-treatment; those who might otherwise resort to illtreatment may be deterred by the knowledge that someone outside has been notified and may be vigilant about the detained person’s well-being. 102. The SPT recommends that the relevant authorities ensure that the right to notify a family member or other relevant person of the deprivation of liberty within 24 hours is effectively implemented also in practice. The SPT further recommends that detainees should be systematically informed about this right and asked to sign a standard form on rights, indicating the person they wish to notify. Police personnel should be instructed to inform detainees of this right and to implement the right by notifying the person indicated.