A/HRC/42/39/Add.1 detention and, according to information received, such detention would generally not last longer than a day. 32. The Working Group views the current practice as positive and recalls that deprivation of liberty must be a measure of last resort. It welcomes the restrained approach of the authorities towards the opening of new detention facilities and invites them to consider carefully any initiatives that would lead to opening of new types of places of deprivation of liberty. H. Custody registers 33. During its first visit in 1994, the Working Group made a series of recommendations concerning the custody registers in places of deprivation of liberty. During its present visit, the Working Group was pleased to see that all the police stations it visited were using registers that followed its recommendations issued in 1994. The registers were generally well kept and up to date. The Working Group recalls that timely and punctual record-keeping is an essential safeguard against arbitrary detention and is to be commended. 34. However, all police stations visited also used a large number of other registers, in some cases over a dozen registers, and often the information recorded in the other registers was duplicated. In addition, some information could only be located in individual case files of the detainees despite the numerous registers. That practice may be counterproductive and the Working Group therefore welcomes the plans to carry out an audit to determine what registers are actually required so as to ensure a more streamlined approach. IV. Main findings concerning the right to personal liberty 35. In determining whether the information provided, including from persons interviewed during the visit, raised issues regarding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty, the Working Group referred to the five categories of arbitrary deprivation of liberty outlined in its methods of work (A/HRC/36/38, para. 8). A. Deprivation of liberty in the context of the criminal justice system 1. Non-bailable offences 36. According to section 199.8A of the Civil and Criminal Procedure Code, as amended in 2011, there are certain criminal offences that are considered to be non-bailable. The courts are not permitted to grant bail to a person who has been charged with either (a) an offence against the security and sovereignty of the country or (b) “an offence of or above felony of the second degree”, which includes murder, treason, terrorism, kidnapping, statutory rape, trafficking of a child between 12 and 18 years of age and aggravated armed robbery. 37. Mandatory pretrial detention for non-bailable offences deprives a detainee of the right to seek non-custodial alternatives to detention, such as bail. In addition, the imposition of pretrial detention for certain non-bailable offences reverses the presumption of innocence found in article 7 (16) of the Constitution, so that those charged with such offences are automatically detained without a balanced consideration of their individual circumstances, including the risk that they may abscond, interfere with evidence or commit an offence. International standards do not prevent pretrial detention being ordered in the serious cases that are currently considered as non-bailable in the Civil and Criminal Procedure Code. Those standards do, however, require that detention only be ordered after a judicial authority has conducted an individualized assessment of whether pretrial detention in each case is reasonable and necessary.1 1 Opinions No. 53/2018, No. 16/2018, No. 1/2018, No. 24/2015 and No. 57/2014. See also A/HRC/19/57, paras. 48–58. 7