The information secured by trained investigators is collated into files, written in summary report form and forwarded to the Attorney-General's office for a decision as to whether prosecution is warranted or not. Often people are interviewed, and the results of the interview then become a part of the investigation. It has been recognized for a long time that the practice of interrogating suspects is subject to abuse by investigators.

In civilized countries the parties who are suspected of having participated in some manner in the matter under investigation are told of their rights. These rights include the right to remain silent and the right to have an attorney present during the interview/interrogation. The attorney thus may witness the interrogation methods.

In the less-developed countries these rights are written but often not extended. In these jurisdictions people may be arrested and held indefinitely, away from legal aid or family, without a specific charge being made against them. Brutal methods may be used to coerce information that may then be used to incriminate them. It has been discovered that after prolonged sleep deprivation and psychological torture [disguised as 'interrogation'] any person can be 'broken' in mind and spirit, such that even a signature affixed to a blank 'confession' may be readily secured. On occassion an innocent person, after severe treatment of this kind, will come into court in a confused state and promptly enter a plea of guilty to a charge which carries the death penalty.

Where the intent of the police is to derive information which is important in the solution of a heinous crime, or where serious threats to the public order are at stake, an argument might be put forward in justification of brutality toward a prisoner. It might also be argued that intensive questioning is necessary in order to extract information important to the prosecution's case. These arguments have been denounced in civilised countries. There have been instances, however, when the investigating officers have exhibited an unusual zeal in deriving information from people in their charge. Under no circumstances should there be physical abuse, but this commonly occurs. Severe mistreatment leading to death is frequently reported in the less developed countries.

Modern procedures of investigation require that investigataing officers conduct themselves in a manner that protects the rights of the accused. Everyone is entitled to fair and courteous treatment under a presumption of innocence. This presumption holds absolutely until the accused is found guilty in a court of law. If the investigators go beyond the bounds of humane interrogation, and this is brought to the attention of the court, then the accused is entitled to be freed, based on the failure of the investigators to adhere to the technical restrictions imposed upon their behaviour by law. Dismissal under these circumstances is commonly known as 'freed on a technicality'.

At one time the English law allowed the king to hold people indefinitely in a keep, goal or tower until it so pleased him. The abuse of this power by various kings brought demands for a speedy disposition, and release if the circumstances called for it. This led to the writ of habeas corpus [c. 1600 CE], which made claim upon the king's officers to 'produce the body' for either indictment on specific charges or dismissal. After an indictment of charges is brought, the accused is allowed to deny the allegations through a plea of 'not guilty', and a time and place is set for trial.

In all but serious cases, where the accused might be expected to flee to avoid trial and punishment, the accused is allowed freedom on deposit of adequate surety with the court, giving assurance that a timely appearance will be made on the date set for hearing evidence.

The right to post 'bail' is a further recognition of the presumption of innocence accorded the accused, and freedom of movement is allowed until the conclusion of the trial. If found guilty, the accused is again allowed freedom on bail if an intent to appeal the judgment is announced. Thus the accused is given every opportunity to make a valid defense against any false charges made.

A plea of guilty results in expeditious sentencing, and if the punishment entails penal servitude, the prisoner is immediately taken into custody to begin serving the sentence, and though appeal of the severity is allowed, the accused makes appeal from the confines of the prison. A guilty plea does not usually provide a right to bail.

An exception is generally made in the case of political prisoners and prisoners of conscience. Where the ruling parties detect a threat from a political opponent, or anyone attempting to reveal government culpability, it is of paramount importance that they be kept in detention so long as the threat is deemed to exist, or until a new government is in place. Even in prison they will be kept from the other prisoners.

THE DENIAL OF BAIL AND SOLITARY CONFINEMENT ARE THE KEY INDICATORS THAT A POLITICAL EVENT IS OCCURRING IN THE JURISDICTION, AND ALL THE PROTESTATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT CAMOUFLAGE THIS FACT.

When a man [or group of men] cannot be given freedom until trial for fear that derogatory or damaging information will be revealed, the presumption of innocence has been denied. All the world then knows that a political event is in progress, and the officers of the court are most of all aware, and are condemned by it.

A country, before it can make any claim to judicial excellence, must first guard jealously the rights of all within its borders. Mistakes sometimes occur, and the universal agreement is that any doubt must be construed in favor of the accused, even though some who are guilty will escape punishment. This is considered preferable to an innocent man being convicted in error. But where the investigators and prosecutors lend themselves to the manufacture of false evidence, and witnesses are coerced to perjure themselves to secure a malicious conviction, this is morally reprehensible. It destroys the morale of the people, generating a disgust and distrust of all legal procedure and all court officers. It plants the seed of rebellion in those who cannot tolerate bondage.

Information which is collected during the investigation process often exonerates the accused. The prosecution is then by law and professional ethics required to place this knowledge quickly into the hands of the defense attorneys, that it may lead to a dismissal of charges in the interests of justice. That this information should be withheld in order to convict an innocent person is unthinkable, yet it occurs. When an investigation results in a report that describes a complete refutation of all charges, this is circulated and becomes widely known. Those on the prosecution team who have seen such reports must make the facts available to the defense, even though the original documents are no longer available. That the prosecution would destroy or conceal the existence of this exculpatory information is itself a crime, and shows a contempt for justice. Unfortunately, this also happens, to the shame of all involved.

The heads of departments and the heads of governments alike routinely receive these files. In the hands of despots damaging files are used to ensure loyalty and obedience from those the files incriminate, or whose family members are vulnerable. Judges may also be presented with such files, with implied or direct threats of prosecution, or threats of prosecution directed against vulnerable members of their families.

A judge thus suborned becomes a cruel and insensitive tool serving at the will of another. He is no longer a judge. He is an instrument of persecution disguised in the gown of a judge.

In instances of this type the X-files become extortion files. The potential for blackmail allows political leaders to direct that false charges be brought against their opponents in open courtrooms where these entrapped judges preside and be certain that a malicious prosecution will result in a conviction, the while exhibiting a blithe disregard for overwhelming evidence establishing innocence.

Men sitting as perpetrators of a malicious prosecution do not listen for evidence supporting acquittal, they listen for evidence that could rebut a presumption of guilt. They betray themselves by shifting the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense.

In other cases it has been found that judges are paid, both in money and kind, for allegiance to a political leader. In these cases where a depravity of the judicial process occurs, the judge usually lacks a decent self respect. There is cynicism amounting to intellectual debauchery, and a guilt that comes from a knowing participation in a criminal conspiracy. Those sworn to uphold the law are themselves criminals, and this is readily apparent to all. The odium of this in men with gown and wig is so palpable they are anathema to all mankind, and are reduced to having no company but among those like themselves.

It is against the monstrous manipulations of men such as these that the jury system was inaugurated in the English common law. In a jury system all members of the jury must hear the charges, all the evidence both for and against the accused. ALL members [usually twelve] must agree that the charges are fairly brought, convincingly proved and the accused treated respectfuly while in detention, offered bail, and given throughout the presumption of innocence.

If ALL TWELVE are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, then there can be NO finding of guilty. If there is inability of the jurors to reach a unanimous verdict, the jury is declared 'hung', and the accused is freed, though still subject to a retrial.