CAT/C/UZB/CO/4 that they may, at their request, contact a family member and that they are informed of their rights and the charges against them; (b) Ensure that the State party monitors the provision of safeguards by all public officials to persons deprived of their liberty, including by requiring that the relevant information be documented in detention registers and that the compliance of officials with these reporting requirements be monitored; (c) Ensure that any public official who denies fundamental legal safeguards to persons deprived of their liberty is disciplined or prosecuted and provide data to the Committee on the number of cases in which public officials have been disciplined for such conduct; (d) Consider taking measures to ensure the videotaping of all interrogations in police stations and detention facilities as a preventive measure. Independence of lawyers 14. The Committee is concerned at the information received that the Chamber of Advocates is not sufficiently independent from the Ministry of Justice and that this has had a negative impact on the independence of the legal profession. The Committee is also concerned that a legislative change in 2009 requiring all attorneys to undergo recertification every three years has in practice resulted in denial of licences to several attorneys who previously represented individuals allegedly subjected to torture, including Ruhiddin Komilov, Rustam Tyuleganov and Bakhrom Abdurakhmanov (art. 2). The State party should take steps to ensure the independence of lawyers and consider amending its legislation to ensure full independence of the Chamber of Advocates from the Ministry of Justice, in particular removing the authority of the Ministry to appoint and remove the Chair of the Chamber. The State party should consider amending the requirement that lawyers obtain recertification to practise every three years. Application of habeas corpus provisions 15. The Committee welcomes the introduction of habeas corpus provisions in domestic legislation. However, it is concerned that judges are not permitted to assess the legality of detention, that the participation of defence lawyers in habeas corpus hearings is not mandatory, that such hearings are reportedly closed and that the 72-hour period in which a person may be detained before being brought before a judge exceeds the 48-hour period recommended by the Committee. Moreover, the Committee is concerned by reports that officials frequently exceed the allowable time period in practice, including by detaining individuals on administrative charges or recording the time or date of detention incorrectly (arts. 2, 11, 12, 13, 15 and 16). The Committee recommends that the State party amend the criminal procedure code to provide judges with competence to apply less restrictive alternatives to detention during habeas corpus hearings, including guarantees of appropriate conduct that would allow the accused to be released pending trial. The State party should ensure in law and in practice that the right of detainees to a lawyer of their choice in habeas corpus hearings is respected. The State party should also ensure that all habeas corpus hearings are public and accessible to independent monitors. The State party should consider revising its legislation so that any detainee, whether detained on criminal or administrative grounds, must be brought to a habeas corpus hearing within 48 hours of deprivation of liberty. 6