A/HRC/34/54/Add.2 have a dual obligation of prevention and accountability. In practice, in Sri Lanka, judges are overly passive and do not seek exculpatory evidence. In criminal cases, that means they rule almost exclusively on the basis of evidence gathered by police. 79. A modern system begins with affording more guarantees for the defendant. The public prosecutors are first and foremost the guardians of legality, which gives them a heightened responsibility. They must enforce the law against criminals but also actively prevent miscarriages of justice by way of torture and manipulation of evidence. 4. Forced confessions: evidence obtained under torture 80. Statements made by any person to a police officer in the course of any investigation may not be used as evidence in the case but only to aid the court in its inquiry or trial (art. 110 (3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act). More importantly, articles 24-27 of the Evidence Ordinance No. 14 of 1895 (and subsequent amendments) provide that confessions extracted through torture are inadmissible in court. However, suspects are at high risk of ill-treatment or torture when they are held incommunicado with the purpose of obtaining a confession. The heavy reliance of the criminal justice system on confession as the primary tool of investigation is a major incentive for torture. On the basis of detainee interviews, the Special Rapporteur is concerned that it is routine practice for the police to extract confessions under duress. 81. The Special Rapporteur is moreover very concerned at judges’ willingness to admit confessions in criminal proceedings without corroboration by other evidence, creating conditions that further encourage torture and ill-treatment. 82. Another important incentive to ill-treatment is the practice of conducting the investigation while the suspect is in custody, rather than determining the need for detention based on preliminary investigations. Authorities have on a regular basis justified prolonged detention by citing the complexity of the investigation, ignoring the stipulation that, with the exception of detentions in cases of flagrante delicto, evidence should be procured before the arrest. 83. The Attorney-General advised the Special Rapporteur that, in line with the Code of Criminal Procedure Act, statements made to the police do not form part of the criminal record in ordinary criminal cases, although he acknowledged that, under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, statements made to a senior police officer are fully admissible in court. However, police routinely forcefully extract self-incriminatory statements in both cases, which seems to negate the preventive impact of their non-admissibility. In addition, this provision of the Act is in direct contradiction to the obligation under the Convention against Torture to exclude all statements made under torture. Voir dire procedure 84. In principle, a confession that is recanted as having been coerced gives rise to a procedure called voir dire, which is best described as a “trial within a trial” to determine whether coercion was used. This procedure correctly places the burden on the State to prove that the statement was not coerced. However, the voir dire procedure is cumbersome and rarely used. In practice, therefore, it does not guarantee the application of the exclusionary rule, and therefore does not reduce the likelihood of torture being used as a means to obtain confessions. 85. Judicial discretion to admit evidence tainted by torture is a violation of the exclusionary rule in international law, including the Convention against Torture. International standards require completely banning the admission of self-incriminating statements not made before a judge following advice of counsel and a warning regarding the right to remain silent without adverse consequences to the defendant or, at the very 14