A/HRC/9/13 page 9 due process standards. These have reportedly included severe limitations on access of appointed defence counsels to their clients and refusal by the courts to take due account of and investigate allegations of torture made by the defendants. Also, the courts operate in accordance with specific rules of procedure, set out by the Chief Justice in consultation with the Minister of Justice. These administrative orders override laws enacted by parliament, including the protection they offer from unfair trial. The Government should strictly observe due process, in particular for those accused of serious crimes who may be facing severe sentences or the death penalty. 30. On 29 and 31 July 2008, three of the five anti-terrorism courts in Khartoum pronounced 30 death sentences for alleged participation in the 10 May attacks on Omdurman. The verdict was reached chiefly on the basis of confessions which the defendants said they were forced to make under torture or ill-treatment and which they retracted in court. Another important element were testimonies by some of the children detained since the attacks on account of their alleged participation in the attacks. The children stated in court that they recognized the defendants as having been among the attackers. Defence lawyers will be appealing the judgement. Verdicts against 28 other defendants are expected to be passed shortly, and further trials are expected to take place after the current round of trials ends. 31. The National Intelligence and Security Services (NISS) reportedly carried out many of the arrests connected to the 10 May attack. This reinforced concerns about the 2001 National Security Forces Act, which contravenes human rights guarantees contained in the Interim National Constitution (INC) and international human rights law and standards. Despite the progress on reforming other laws based on provisions set out in the INC and the CPA, the National Security Forces Act is still unreformed. Members of the Human Rights and Legislative Committees of the National Assembly gave assurances that this Act would be the focus of the next Parliamentary session commencing in October 2008. The Special Rapporteur is concerned, however, that some members also expressed sentiments that the 10 May attacks had shown that the hands of the national security services could not be tied and NISS could not be restricted to just gathering intelligence as stipulated in the CPA. 32. There is evidence that NISS, beyond the response to the 10 May attacks described above, regularly uses arbitrary arrest and detention against political dissidents. According to reports, individuals are frequently picked up and detained by unidentified NISS agents without being told the reason for their arrest. Detainees have in some instances been held for several months without charge and without access to a lawyer or to their families. The locations in which NISS detainees are held are frequently unknown and there are allegations of secret detention facilities being maintained in residential or office premises. Members of several different political and opposition groups from around the country, as well as those associated with such groups, have reported being held by NISS in connection with their public political activities. 33. NISS is not the only Government authority reportedly responsible for arbitrary arrest and detention. The police have on several occasions been reported to hold individuals in their custody without initiating the required judicial review within 24 hours of the arrest. Police have also been accused of carrying out arrests based on only very limited evidence and without much regard as to whether physical detention is actually necessary in the case.