CAT/C/PRT/CO/5-6 Fundamental safeguards 8. The Committee regrets that, despite its previous concluding observations (CAT/C/PRT/CO/4, para. 7), the State party has not taken steps to guarantee that the time spent in detention for identification purposes (maximum 6 hours) is deducted from the total period of police custody (48 hours), particularly in the light of the explanations provided by the State party that detention for identification purposes can be used whenever there are sufficient grounds to believe that the person might have perpetrated a crime. The Committee is concerned that persons detained for identification purposes and suspected of a crime might not be afforded, in practice, the same safeguards as other detained persons under the regular procedure during this six-hour period. The Committee bears in mind, in this regard, that there have been instances in which detained persons have not been informed of their rights from the outset of the detention. The Committee also notes that the right to access to a lawyer promptly upon detention is not effective in practice for those who cannot afford a private lawyer, since access to an ex officio lawyer is guaranteed only at the detention hearing before the judge (arts. 2, 11, and 12). The State party should: (a) Amend the Code of Criminal Procedure to ensure that detention starts at the outset of deprivation of liberty and that the time spent in custody for identification purposes is considered part of the 48-hour period within which a detained person must be brought before a judge; (b) Ensure that suspects are informed of and are able to exercise their rights at the very moment of their deprivation of liberty, and are informed of the reasons for their detention; (c) Guarantee access to an ex officio lawyer, including consultations in private, as from the moment of deprivation of liberty and during interviews with law enforcement officials; (d) Ensure that compliance with the legal safeguards by all public officials is regularly monitored and that those who do not comply with these safeguards are properly sanctioned. Prompt, effective and impartial investigations 9. The Committee regrets the lack of data concerning criminal investigations into, and prosecutions and sanctions for, the crime of torture and ill-treatment (art. 243 of the Criminal Code) during the period covered by the State party’s report. The Committee is also concerned at the lack of clarification on the competence of the internal and external inspection services of each branch of police and prison services to carry out investigations into alleged acts of torture and ill-treatment, and on how these inspection services relate to the Public Prosecutor’s Office when they are conducting criminal and disciplinary investigations in parallel. As regards the information provided on disciplinary proceedings from 2008 to 2010, the Committee notes with concern the limited number of punishments imposed in cases of ill-treatment by police and prison officers, as well as the large number of cases closed due to lack of evidence, even where allegations of ill-treatment by police forces and by prison staff have been documented by monitoring bodies. The Committee is concerned at information indicating that, with regard to prisoners alleging ill-treatment, a full medical examination out of the hearing and sight of prison officers does not always take place, and that injuries observed upon admission or sustained in prison thereafter are not properly recorded (arts. 2, 12, 13 and 16). 3