E/CN.4/2005/6/Add.3 page 16 themselves in the crime they are accused of. The conditions in pre-trial detention centres being as harsh as they are, self-incrimination is a safe passport to prison colonies, where living conditions improve. If a person challenges the system or his or her detention, he or she is kept longer in a pre-trial detention centre, and the more complicated a case becomes, the more pre-trial detention is extended. This is why detainees consider that collaborating with the investigators will speed up the proceedings and conclude the preliminary investigation expeditiously. 52. The Working Group stresses that under the law, the pre-trial regime of detention is applied until the final judgement enters into force, including appeal and cassation proceedings. In the regime for convicted persons, detainees benefit from rehabilitation programmes, semi-open regimes, conditional release, and amnesties, and are given more time and facilities for visits. 53. This system, inherited from the Soviet time, is unbroken and continues to lead to severe restrictions of access to the outside world for all detainees who are in pre-trial detention. A person who is supposed to be innocent until convicted is kept in more severe conditions than a person who is serving his sentence after conviction. As such, the presumption of innocence is seriously undermined. 54. The Working Group was told that in many cases the charges brought by investigators do not correspond to the real reasons for a detention, especially when there is a political component to the accusation. This is also due to legislation that is vague and leaves room for abuses, undermining the presumption of innocence. Moreover, it appears that attempts to demonstrate effectiveness in combating crime lead to the fabrication of false cases from the very beginning of the detention. The system of exercising pressure to obtain self-incrimination in pre-trial detention and the over-reliance of judges on the evidence, statements and protocols of the investigator make it impossible to challenge charges in this type of case. Lack of effective internal control, and moreover, external control, such as the one that could be exercised by independent institutions, nullify the possibility of holding those fabricating cases accountable. 55. The Working Group also notes that it could not meet or interview some detainees without an authorization from the authorities in charge of the investigation, and that even when the preliminary investigation was completed, these restrictions were not waived. The Working Group is especially concerned about the situation of persons being held in detention centres under the responsibility of the KGB. The Working Group notes how difficult it was to gain access to these persons and places. Although it had insisted on such a visit, it was not authorized to visit the detention centres under the responsibility of the KGB. 56. The Working Group was thus not authorized to meet Mr. Mikhail Marynich, a former Government Minister and Ambassador and leader of the Business Initiative, detained at the KGB detention centre in Minsk. Mr. Marynich is also a leading opponent who ran against President Lukashenko in 2001. Authorities of the detention centre stated that Mr. Marynich could not receive visitors because he was under investigation on charges of serious crimes against the State.