A/HRC/7/3/Add.2 page 88 445. 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; 446. In June 2007, the Supreme Court issued a groundbreaking ruling in relation to disappearances. Based on the work of the Supreme Court Task Force which had been set up in relation to a group of petitions of habeas corpus related to disappearance cases from the conflict, the ruling ordered the Government to enact a law to criminalize enforced disappearance in line with the International Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance; establish a high level commission of inquiry on disappearances committed during the conflict in compliance with international standards; conduct investigations and prosecutions of persons responsible for disappearances; and provide adequate compensation and relief to victims’ families. The decision was a significant step forward in recognizing the rights of victims of disappearance and their families to truth, justice and reparations. As of January 2008, the ruling had yet to be implemented. A credible commission of inquiry had yet to be set up. Legislation on disappearances was being drafted by the Home Ministry. Copies of the draft were not available for comment. A previous bill drafted in April and never adopted fell short of international standards. In its 23-point agreement reached in December 2007, the Seven Party Alliance agreed that a commission of inquiry into disappearances would be set up within a month. 447. The Government informed that the Interim Constitution of Nepal guarantees the independence of judiciary and the right of a person to habeas corpus. Some 647 and 640 cases of habeas corpus petitions were lodged at the Supreme Court in 2006 and 2005, respectively. Every detainee has the right to constitutional remedies and ascertaining the legality of his/her detention. The Interim Constitution of Nepal also guarantees the independence of judiciary. 448. 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; 449. According to OHCHR, in many cases lawyers are not present when detainees initially make “confessions”, which are often extracted after beatings, threats or other pressures. Police have openly told OHCHR that they rely heavily on confessions for criminal investigations, and that they constitute the main and sometimes almost exclusive part of an investigation. Some have even implied that if they did not use force they would not be able to obtain a confession. 450. The Government responded that according to the State Cases Act, 1993, all investigations of criminal offences are to be done under the direct supervision of the District Attorney. At present, video and audio equipment are not used at the time of interrogation. Consideration will be given in the future to improve interrogation procedures.