E/CN.4/1999/61/Add.1 page 11 Torture considered that “the maximum time limit of 30 days for police custody, applicable to persons captured or arrested in regions under a state of emergency before they are brought before a judge, is excessive and may leave room for acts of torture by the security forces” (Official Records of the General Assembly, Forty-eighth Session, Supplement No. 44A (A/48/44/Add.1), para. 25). This finding reflected the fact that, until 6 March 1997, article 30 of Law No. 3842 of 18 November 1992 permitted detention periods of up to 15 days for “collective” crimes and those committed under the jurisdiction of the State Security Courts and up to 30 days in state of emergency zones. A law of 6 March 1997 abolished article 30 of Law No. 3842 and amended the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Law on the Creation of the State Security Courts and their Judicial Procedures, as well as Law No. 3842 of 18 November 1992. 36. Article 13 of the new Regulation, which effectively incorporates, with some modifications, article 3 of the law of 6 March 1997 provides that “if a person apprehended for crimes committed by one or two persons is not released, he must be arraigned before the competent judge no later than 24 hours, except the necessary time needed for his arraignment before the nearest judge. If the crime falls under the scope of the State Security Courts, this period is 48 hours.” Article 14 provides that this period may be extended by written order of the public prosecutor to a total of four days in the case of collective crimes, including crimes falling under the jurisdiction of the State Security Courts. Further, if the investigation is still not completed after the four days, the prosecutor may request the judge to extend the custody to seven days before the suspect is arraigned before the judge. For such crimes committed in emergency regions and falling under the scope of the State Security Courts, the seven-day period may be extended to 10 days upon request of the prosecutor and the decision of the judge. 37. Article 20 of this Regulation provides that “the apprehended person may meet with the lawyer at any time and in an environment where others will not hear the conversation”. However, in crimes falling under the scope of the State Security Courts, the apprehended person may meet his lawyer only upon extension of the custody period by order of the judge. 38. Article 6 also provides important safeguards to protect an individual at the time of arrest. Specifically, “the person will be informed of his right to inform his relatives of his apprehension, the reason for apprehension, and the right to remain silent, regardless of the nature of the crime”. However, there is an important limitation on the right to inform relatives of apprehension, namely, if this information would “harm the investigation as to the context and the subject”. Moreover, article 9 of the Regulation states that “for crimes falling under the jurisdiction of the State Security Courts, the relatives will be informed through the same way if there is no harm to the outcome of the investigation” (emphasis added). 2. Implementation 39. The new Regulation on Apprehension, Police Custody and Interrogation, and the various provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Penal Code and the Constitution that ban and criminalize torture and ill-treatment demonstrate that significant improvements have been made to the legal