E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.6 page 29 cross-examined in the courtroom by both sides, that is, the public prosecutor and victim as well as the defendant and defenders …”, article 14 of the Interpretation of the SPC on Several Issues Regarding the Implementation of the CPL of June 1998 provides for 4 exceptional cases in which a witness may be absent, including; “for any other reason”. 27 See the Study of the Prevention of and Counter Measures for The Extortion of Confessions by Torture of the Legal Studies Association (The Task Group On The Prevention of the Use of Torture in Interrogation), March 2005, at p.6 (Analysis for the Reasons of Use of Torture) “in judicial practice, due to the fact that a verbal affidavit is not just a kind of evidence, but is also often used as an important lead to further evidence, verbal confessions have become irreplaceable evidence. Added to that, there is the traditional view that ‘no verbal confession then no recorded case’, and that ‘verbal confessions are king evidence’. Some judiciary personnel have formed the view that verbal confessions are the best. This results in an investigative approach centred round confessions as evidence. It urges investigators to use any means possible in order to obtain a verbal confession from a suspect. That motive easily leads to the use of torture.” 28 See article 50 of the CPL read in conjunction with articles 63 to 65 of the SPC Interpretations on Several Issues Regarding Implementation of the CPL, articles 32 to 36 of the SPP Rules on the Criminal Process for People’s Procuratorate and articles 60 to 62 of the Rules on the Process of Handling Criminal Cases by Public Security Departments issued by the MPS. A similar power is available pursuant to article 9 of the People’s Police Law which gives police the right to detain individuals for questioning (liuzhi panwen) for up to 24 hours, with a possible extension of an extra 24 hours. Currently, the CPL does not limit the number of times coercive summons may be used and it does not specify how long authorities must wait between the uses of coercive summons. See Article 69 of the CPL which stipulates: “If the public security organ deems it necessary to arrest a detainee, it shall, within three days after the detention, submit a request to the People’s Procuratorate for examination and approval. Under special circumstances, the time limit for submitting a request for examination and approval may be extended by one to four days. As to the arrest of a major suspect involved in crimes committed from one place to another, repeatedly, or in a gang, the time limit for submitting a request for examination and approval may be extended to 30 days. The People’s Procuratorate shall decide either to approve or disapprove the arrest within seven days from the date of receiving the written request for approval of arrest submitted by a public security organ. If the People’s Procuratorate disapproves the arrest, the public security organ shall, upon receiving notification, immediately release the detainee and inform the People’s Procuratorate of the result without delay. If further investigation is necessary, and if the released person meets the conditions for obtaining a guarantor pending trial or for residential surveillance, he shall be allowed to obtain a guarantor pending trial or subjected to residential surveillance according to law.” 29 When one of the seven emergency circumstances listed in article 61 of the CPL is met, crime investigation authorities may detain people for a ten-day period, which can be extended to 14 days. The criminal detention can be further prolonged for up to 37 days when the detainee is suspected of “committing crimes from one place to another, repeatedly, or in a gang”.