E/CN.4/2000/9/Add.1 page 27 and human rights NGOs concerning various points at issue, pending the entry into force of the CCP, at which point the use of ill-treatment to obtain information from detainees would be inadmissible. 130. Concerning the Rapporteur’s recommendation that the Institute of Forensic Medicine should be independent of any authority responsible for the investigation or prosecution of crime, the Government stated that, following the introduction of the new accusatorial procedure by the CCP, all criminal investigation bodies, including that Institute and the Judicial Police Technical Unit, would be under the authority of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, although administratively they would continue to be attached to the Ministry of Justice. The latter would not be able to interfere in any way with orders issued by the Public Prosecutor. 131. Regarding the introduction of a system of regular visits to all places of detention, with participation by independent persons of standing and representatives of NGOs, the Government stated that the Ministry of Justice, with assistance from the European Union and NGOs, had provided training courses in human rights for virtually all staff of the prison system, with special emphasis on the proper treatment of prisoners. 132. The Rapporteur recommended that extrajudicial confessions should not be admissible as evidence against anyone other than a person charged with using force to obtain them. The Government stated that the new CCP introduced a new, broader and freer system of evidence, as opposed to the previous system of ratings for each type of evidence, and in particular eliminated oral confession as the most highly rated piece of evidence (Regina Probatorium). The new provisions included the following: “No information shall be used which has been obtained through torture, ill-treatment, coercion, threats, deception, undue intrusion into the privacy of the home, correspondence, communications, private papers and files, or any other means against an individual’s will or in violation of his fundamental rights. Similarly, information resulting directly or indirectly from illicit means or procedures shall be given no value”. Accordingly, only statements made before a judge would have probative value, and it would not be possible to interrogate an accused in the absence of his defence counsel. 133. With regard to the drawing-up of a code of practice for the conduct of interrogations by law enforcement officials, the Government pointed out that the police were no longer empowered to take statements. On that point, the Ministry of the Interior had made commitments during the meeting between the National Executive and the human rights NGOs, in a decision setting out the Executive’s sectoral human rights programme. The decision included safeguards for the rights of citizens vis-à-vis the police and measures for the training of police officers. 134. The Rapporteur recommended that torture, as defined in article 182 of the Penal Code, should be made a criminal offence in any case of detention, not just when inflicted in prison. The offence should have no period of statutory limitation or, at the very least, a period equal to that applicable to the most serious crimes under the Penal Code, and should be punished as severely. In general, provisions regarding the offence of torture should be in conformity with the standards set forth in the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Government stated that consideration had begun of a bill to characterize torture as an offence and establish standards for preventing and punishing it