E/CN.4/1995/34 page 84 hearing judge ordered the committal for trial of six defendants. The proceeding commenced on 30 October 1993 and was ongoing. On 6 April 1994 the director of the penitentiary was suspended from his office and arrested by order of the Naples preliminary hearing judge. Japan Information transmitted to the Government and replies received thereon 441. By letter dated 29 June 1994 the Special Rapporteur advised the Government that he had received information according to which suspects held in police custody prior to indictment were kept in detention facilities known as "substitute prisons" (daiyo kangoku). While in principle police are required to present a detainee to a prosecutor within 48 hours of being taken into custody, detention for a period of up to 20 days may be authorized by order of a judge or, upon application, by a prosecutor. Following this period suspects must either be released or indicted and transferred to a prison or detention house. The 22-day period of pre-indictment detention in "substitute prisons" was said to create conditions under which torture or ill-treatment was likely to occur, as suspects were placed under the permanent control of the police. 442. Under these circumstances police investigators were said frequently to subject suspects to interrogation sessions of more than 10 hours per day without effective control, since records of the date and length of interrogation sessions were not available to detainees, lawyers or courts. "Confessions" signed by suspects during interrogation were said to be statements prepared by interrogators, not records of question and answers. As a result, there was no record accessible to lawyers or courts of the manner in which a confession was obtained, other than a record of the time of day it was signed. It was reported that lawyers were not permitted to be present during the interrogation of suspects and that government-funded legal aid was not available to suspects held in "substitute prisons", as only defendants against whom an indictment had been drawn were eligible for such legal aid. 443. Reports also indicated that "substitute prison" detainees did not have access to independent medical attention. Persons requesting medical attention could meet with medical doctors commissioned by district police authorities. However, details of such visits and the findings of the doctor were recorded on a log kept by the authorities in charge of detention to which detainees, lawyers or courts had no access. Courts which requested details of medical findings were, in practice, merely provided by police with a summary of the log entry. 444. On 18 November 1994 the Government replied with regard to this general information that a number of systems and measures had been adopted and implemented to prevent coerced confession and to guarantee the rights of detained suspects. These included: the complete separation of the investigation branch from the branch in charge of custodial management in the police; a system of filing complaints regarding treatment and human rights in accordance with the regulations concerning the custody of suspects; an appeal system (jun-kukoku) against a judge’s system of detention; habeas corpus remedies; rights of communication with and visits by the defence counsel;