g) All detainees should be effectively guaranteed the ability to challenge the lawfulness of the detention before an independent court, e.g. through habeas corpus. Situation in during visit in 2005 (See E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.6) detention by the police (Daibu), which could be extended by the procuratorate for up to six and a half months or, in the case of the discovery of new crimes, indefinitely. Steps taken in previous years (See A/HRC/4/33/Add.2, A/HRC/7/3/Add.2, A/HRC/10/44/Add.5 and A/HRC/16/52/Add.2) phase, suspects remained in detention centres under the authority of the PSB. Information received in the reporting period Government 2008: The SPP placed extended detention in criminal cases within the sphere of oversight of the people‘s supervisors, which led to a reduction of the use of extended pre-trial detention. Government: Under the NHRA, effective steps shall be taken to guarantee the lawful, timely and impartial trial of all cases. China‘s domestic legislation did not provide for habeas corpus or any other legal recourse to challenge arrest and Non-governmental sources: Reportedly, no steps to pre-trial detention before an guarantee prompt judicial review before an independent court. independent judicial authority of the lawfulness of the arrest have been taken. It is alleged that the courts are not independent and remain politically controlled. The use of administrative detention at the discretion of the police and without legal procedure, such as house arrest and detention in ‗black sites' remain widespread. It is alleged that the use of black jails was systematically applied against petitioners during the Olympic Games and its preparations. Non-governmental sources: It is reported that on 25 h) Confessions made - Article 43 of the CPL June 2010, the Supreme People‘s Court, the Supreme without the presence of a prohibited the extortion of People‘s Procuratorate, the Ministry of Public lawyer and that are not confessions by torture or the confirmed before a judge threat of torture, but not the use Security, the Ministry of State Security and the Ministry of Justice jointly issued two regulations should not be admissible as of confessions extracted regarding evidence in criminal cases; one dealing evidence. Video and audio through torture as evidence with the exclusion of confessions extracted through taping of all persons present before courts. during proceedings in - The Supreme People‘s Court torture, and the other dealing with the exclusion of cases which came into interrogation rooms should held in 1999 that evidence and illegal evidence in capital force from 1 July 2010.4 These regulations have been 4 ―The regulations are ―Rules Concerning Questions About Exclusion of Illegal Evidence in Handling Criminal Cases‖, and ―Rules Concerning Questions About Examining and Judging Evidence in Death Penalty Cases.‖ (According to the 13 June Notice from the various ministries A/HRC/19/61/Add.3 12 Recommendation (E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.6) non-violent, minor or less serious offences, and the application of non-custodial measures such as bail and recognizance be increased.