A/HRC/28/68/Add.3 53. Even though the use of arraigo is declining with the introduction of adversarial criminal proceedings, the measure is contrary to international law and encourages the prevailing philosophy of detaining in order to investigate. This can be seen in the Federal District, which continues to use arraigo, albeit with a different name (“detention with judicial oversight”) and for a shorter period of time. The Special Rapporteur is concerned that the National Code of Criminal Procedure authorizes house arrest (resguardo domicilario), as well as up to six months of supplementary investigation after a person’s detention pending trial and before charges are brought, to enable the Public Prosecution Service to investigate. 13 During this time, the person may be held in pretrial detention, which in the case of serious offences is mandatory. The Special Rapporteur recommends that the necessary procedural guarantees be strengthened to ensure presumption of innocence and avoid replicating arraigo with other similar measures. 5. Record of detention 54. The obligation to draw up a detailed, immediate record of detention is not always fulfilled. This situation, coupled with the absence of a unified, publicly accessible register of detentions, makes it difficult to find out where and how a person was detained and hinders judicial oversight. Since 2008, there has been provision in the Constitution for an “immediate record of detention”, but its design and implementation are not necessarily aimed at evaluating the conduct of those who detained the person and it does not therefore include data on medical opinions or incidents during detention. Some positive elements are the requirement that the Public Prosecution Service keep a record of detentions, in accordance with the National Code of Criminal Procedure and Agreement No. A/126/10 of the Attorney General’s Office. The Special Rapporteur urges that these measures be strengthened to ensure a nationwide, publicly accessible register of detentions indicating the number and identity of detainees, their whereabouts, conditions of detention, the chain of custody and the treatment received. 6. Evidence obtained under torture 55. The Constitution prohibits the consideration of evidence obtained under torture or in violation of fundamental rights and attaches safeguards to the accused’s statement for it to be admissible in court. Occasionally, however, judges admit evidence obtained as a result of torture or ill-treatment or postpone a decision on its admissibility to the final sentencing stage, while the accused generally remains in pretrial detention. People are often found guilty solely or primarily on the basis of confessions obtained as a result of torture or illtreatment. This practice breaches the standard of exclusion of evidence contained in article 15 of the Convention against Torture and article 8 of the Federal Act on the Prevention and Punishment of Torture and encourages the use of torture and ill-treatment during the investigation. 56. Judges often invoke the misapplied theory of “procedural immediacy” to admit such evidence, giving greater weight to the detainee’s initial statements over subsequent ones, even if the initial statement was obtained without the necessary guarantees. This theory would not apply in adversarial proceedings. The State must also ensure that any confession is made in the presence of a lawyer and with judicial oversight and is weighed with the rest of the evidence. Judges have also dismissed allegations of torture or ruled confessions admissible on the grounds that the victim has not proved the existence of torture or the responsibility of a public employee. The Special Rapporteur recalls that international law stipulates that, once a credible allegation of torture or ill-treatment has been made, the State 13 GE.14-25288 National Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 321. 13