A/HRC/4/33/Add.2 Page 80 431. On 6 March 2006, the then Office of the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers opened the Human Rights Central Registry, whose functions were to include, inter alia, maintaining an up-to-date list of detentions throughout the country. It is reported that in early April 2006 it was still not operational and was unlikely to be so for at least several weeks. NA, Home Office, Armed Police Force (APF) and Nepal Police (NP) staff had been assigned to the office and were starting to develop a detention database, but no data had been entered as yet for the (at the time) over 7,000 detainees and prisoners officially recognized as being held throughout Nepal. Operational procedures were still to be prepared and put in place. The office never became fully functional and ceased to function shortly after the change of government in April 2006. 432. There is no information available on internal police guidelines or regulations for detention in police custody. 433. Recommendation (f) stated: All detained persons be effectively guaranteed the ability to challenge the lawfulness of their detention, e.g. through habeas corpus. Such procedures should function effectively and expeditiously; 434. According to information received from NGOs and other sources, Nepali law allows for the presentation of habeas corpus petitions to challenge the legality of arrest. Such petitions were filed frequently by political activists detained in the context of mass protests in January and April, and were often successful. Other habeas corpus cases, particularly regarding past disappearance cases, have been pending for long periods. However, in late August 2006, the Supreme Court ordered the formation of a Task Force to investigate four disappearance cases. The work of the Task Force, which was given three months to submit a report to the Supreme Court, is ongoing. An additional twenty-seven habeas corpus petitions involving disappeared persons are currently pending before the Supreme Court. Twenty-two were finally heard in December 2006 and are pending a decision. 435. Recommendation (g) stated: Confessions made by persons in custody without the presence of a lawyer and that are not confirmed before a judge not be admissible as evidence against the persons who made the confession. Serious consideration should be given to video and audio taping of all persons present during proceedings in interrogation rooms; 436. According to information received from NGOs and other sources, in most cases, lawyers are not present during interrogation sessions, including when “confessions” are alleged to have been made. In the context of the review on TADO detention, none of the detainees interviewed had been given access to a lawyer while held in an army barracks and only rarely in police custody. Statements taken during the period of incommunicado detention, often after torture, were often used by Appellate Court judges to issue pre-trial detention orders under TADO. Once detainees were transferred to prison, they were in principle supposed to be given access to a legal representative. However, only a very small number of detainees said they had been provided with legal assistance; either a lawyer provided by NGOs who gave priority to assisting juveniles or a private lawyer engaged by the family. 437. Recommendation (h) stated: Judges and prosecutors routinely ask persons brought from police custody how they have been treated and, even in the absence of a formal complaint from the defendant, order an independent medical examination;