104. 工作组也认为，来文方关于逼供的说法是可信的。政府没有对来文方关于在审讯期间在作出此类供词时没有律师在场的指控予以处理。在没有法律代表的情况下所作的供述不能作为刑事诉讼中的证据。29 此外，无论是否有其他证据支25 尤其见《关于律师作用的基本原则》之原则 2。26 另见人权事务委员会，第 32 号一般性意见(2007 年)，第 34 段。27 CAT/C/BHR/CO/2-3，第 8 段和第 16–17 段。28 第 73/2019 号意见，第 90 段；以及第 5/2020 号意见，第 80 段。29 第 59/2019 号意见，第 70 段；和第 73/2019 号意见，第 91 段；以及 E/CN.4/2003/68，第 26(e)段。另见儿童权利委员会，第 24 号一般性意见(2007 年)，第 60 段。持判决，采信通过酷刑或虐待获得的供词作为证据，导致整个诉讼程序有失公正。30 政府有责任证明供述是自愿作出的，31 但它没有这样做。
104. The Working Group also considers that the source’s claims about forced confessions are credible. The Government has not addressed the alleged absence of legal counsel during the interrogations when such confessions were made. Confessions made in the absence of legal representation are not admissible as evidence in criminal proceedings.29 Further, the 24 A/HRC/45/16, paras. 50–55. 25 See, in particular, principle 2 of the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers. 26 See also Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007), para. 34. 27 CAT/C/BHR/CO/2-3, paras. 8 and 16–17. 28 Opinions No. 73/2019, para. 90, and No. 5/2020, para. 80. 29 Opinions No. 59/2019, para. 70, and No. 73/2019, para. 91; and E/CN.4/2003/68, para. 26 (e). See also Committee on the Rights of the Child, general comment No. 24 (2007), para. 60.