CAT/C/75 page 39 in 1998; of these, 16,754 suspects (54 per cent) were not being detained at the time, while 13,997 (46 per cent) were already in detention. These latter individuals must necessarily have been detained under the exceptional power to detain without a prior warrant on grounds of flagrante delicto or in pressing cases. 182. According to information acquired during the Committee’s visit to Mexico, in over 51 per cent of the cases (7,045) sent for trial by the Federal District Public Attorney’s Office in 1999 the suspects were already being held in detention, while in 49 per cent (6,646 cases) they were not. 183. In practice, the ability of the Public Prosecutor’s Office to waive the requirement of a court order before effecting an arrest gives it and the judicial police discretionary powers to order and carry out arrests and describe the evidence available as sufficient for detaining an individual for up to 48 hours - 72 hours in the Federal District - after the crime of which he is suspected, or for twice as long if they claim that they suspect him of involvement in organized crime. 184. The statement made by the Jalisco State Human Rights Commission in its recommendation 4/2000 is revealing in this context: “The Public Prosecutor’s Office must start moving towards an accusatory system and away from the system of inquisitorial initial investigations. Although our current system of criminal justice assigns the Public Prosecutor’s Office functions similar to those of the court at the initial investigation stage, the system can be improved. A first step would be to ensure that the legal guarantees for individuals are respected and upheld; we must not permit investigations to be launched without guaranteeing the freedom of person and movement laid down in our basic texts and detentions [should be permitted to] occur only subject to legal considerations.”41 D. Lack of judicial supervision while a detainee is being held by the Public Prosecutor’s Office 185. During the extended periods available to the Public Prosecutor’s Office before producing a detainee before the appropriate court, there is no judicial mechanism to check on the detainee’s situation. When they expire, the Office can order the detainee’s release or place him at the court’s disposal. In the former case there will be no judicial checks at all, either on whether the detention was legal or on how the detainee was treated, unless the detainee brings a separate action for arbitrary detention or for duress or torture against the Public Prosecutor’s Office or the judicial police. 186. It is precisely when they are being held on police or Public Prosecutor’s Office premises that accused persons are most vulnerable to abuse. According to the reports of torture looked into during the inquiry and the visit to the State, the highest incidence of torture occurred during the period between detention and committal for trial. This is when judicial checks on the legality of detention and the treatment of detainees are most needed. The lack of such checks inclines the police and public prosecutors in favour of a procedure which frees them for a considerable while from outside interference and restrictions that might hinder their accumulation of evidence to support committal for trial.