A/HRC/18/53 interrogations of suspects in places of detention are untrue, it has no legal or material evidence. Following Abolition of the State of Emergency Law, decree number (161) on 21 April 212011, and decree number (55) on 21 April 2011, the possibility of maintaining allegations of the existence of arbitrary detention or abuse of the law in any of our law enforcement institutions is no longer plausible. Here is a list containing the numbers of cases of allegations of torture performed on detainees: courts Number of cases Damascus Court 1 Damascus countryside court 5 Aleppo Court 1 Lattakia Court 1 Dair Al Zor Court 2 Hama Court 1 Idlib Court none Raqqa Court none Hasaka Court none Homs Court none Tartus Court none Dara Court none Swaida Court none total 12 Authorities conduct investigations in these cases under the judiciary system as they are usually cases involving suspects which accuse interrogators of torture in order to get less punishment for their crimes. If it proven that torture has been used, the investigation will be considered invalid. Confessions proven to be under torture are also invalid. No valid confession can be obtained by torture. Yet, when this happens, it has no value without additional supporting evidence. The general authority of the Cassation Court, which is the highest judicial authority, produces jurisprudence rules that have the status of legal rules. For fear of making a serious professional error, jurisprudence of the Cassation Court is respected by all judges. Cassation Court declared that the mention of a confession made by an accused of a crime in a police report is invalid, unless it is supported by additional evidence (The general authority of the Cassation Court, decision number 293, in the court case number 538 of the year 2005). It also stipulates that confessions in presence of law enforcement agents are revocable, it is not considered as legal proof of crime unless supported by additional evidence (Decision number 400, in the court case number 97 of 2005). A confession mentioned in a police document is not a basis for judgment and neglecting essential motives and other evidence pieces or refraining from discussing these elements is considered to be a serious professional error (Decision number 52, in the court case number 259 of 2006). Information obtained by force in police stations, although it might appear to be important for the investigation taking place, and might help to uncover the truth, is legally invalid, unless supported by additional pieces of evidence. Not taking into consideration 83