E/CN.4/1992/17/Àdd.l page 9 "A person detained on a criminal charge shall be brought before a judicial or other authority provided by law promptly after his arrest. Such authority shall decide without delay upon the lawfulness and necessity of detention. No person may be kept under detention pending investigation or trial except upon the written order of such an authority. A detained person shall, when brought before such an authority, have the right to make a statement on the treatment received by him while in custody." 34. Since torture usually occurs during the initial phases of an investigation, such external supervision of the lawfulness of the detention and treatment of a detainee must be seen as an important protection measure for the person's basic human rights, provided the judicial or other authority takes its responsibility seriously. Another such protective element is found in principle 29 which states that in order to supervise the strict observance of relevant laws and regulations, places of detention shall be visited regularly by qualified and experienced persons appointed by, and responsible to, a competent authority distinct from the authority directly in charge of the administration of the place of detention or imprisonment. The Special Rapporteur is not aware of any existing regulation in Indonesia implementing this principle, with regard to arrested persons who are held in police detention or are awaiting trial elsewhere. 35. Even if it is taken into account that a detained person can challenge the lawfulness of his detention in pre-trial proceedings, a procedure which is in conformity with principle 32, the conditions under which he is detained and the treatment he is given cannot be dealt with during such proceedings. The Special Rapporteur was informed that, in cases of alleged torture or maltreatment, the detainee or his relatives have to file a complaint with the police. This can hardly be called an effective remedy since it is that same police which is said to have maltreated the suspect. Here again the provisions of principle 33, dealing with complaints about torture or maltreatment, do not seem to be fully met. In particular, paragraph 4 of principle 33 is relevant in this respect. It states that every request or complaint shall be promptly dealt with and replied to without undue delay. If the request or complaint is rejected or in case of inordinate delay, the complainant shall be entitled to bring it before a judicial or other authority. The Special Rapporteur is not aware of any provision entitling a suspect to bring such a complaint before a judicial or other authority if the police has rejected it, nor is there any provision which obliges the public prosecutor or the judge to hear and see the suspect when deciding on the extension of a detention order after 20 or 60 days, respectively. The public prosecutor or the judge will often be unaware of the fact that the suspect has complained about having been tortured. 36. The judge is only confronted with the issue of torture or maltreatment when he is evaluating the evidence provided by the police. A member of the judiciary told the Special Rapporteur that it was very difficult to decide whether such evidence had been obtained by extortion at such a late stage, especially if a statement had been signed by the suspect. He also said that in a case where evidence was alleged to have been obtained under torture, he could not order an investigation but had to rely on the contents of the file and the proceedings during the trial.