CAT/C/BLR/CO/4 removal of judges, their appointment and tenure, undermine these provisions and do not guarantee judges’ independence towards the executive branch of Government (arts. 2, 12 and 13). In particular, the Committee is concerned about: (a) The intimidation and interference in the discharge of the professional functions of lawyers, as noted with concern by the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers (A/HRC/17/30/Add.1, para. 101). The Committee remains concerned that bar associations, although independent by law, are in practice subordinate to the Ministry of Justice and that several lawyers defending individuals detained in connection with the event on 19 December 2010 were disbarred by the Ministry of Justice; and (b) Cases in which judicial bias in favour of the prosecution was alleged, including the case of Vladimir Russkin, who claimed he was forbidden to call his own witnesses and to question those presenting evidence against him as well as the courts’ performance in several trials related to the event of 19 December 2010. In light of its previous recommendation (A/56/44, para. 46 (d)), the Committee urges the State party to: (a) Guarantee the full independence of the judiciary in line with the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary; (b) Ensure that judicial selection, appointment, compensation and tenure are made according to objective criteria concerning qualification, integrity, ability and efficiency; and (c) Investigate the cases of lawyers who represented individuals detained in connection with the events of 19 December 2010 and were subsequently disbarred, including Pavel Spelka, Tatsiana Aheyeva, Uladszimir Toustsik, Aleh Aleyeu, Tamara Harayeva, and Tamara Sidarenka, and reinstate their licenses, as appropriate. Monitoring and inspection of places of deprivation of liberty 13. While noting the information on the detention monitoring activities by the Office of the Procurator-General, the national public watchdog commission of the Ministry of Justice and local watchdog commissions, the Committee is deeply concerned by the reported lack of independence of the national monitoring system and the lack of information on effective procedures and reporting practices. The Committee also regrets reports on the alleged misuse of psychiatric hospitalization for other reasons than medical ones, and the lack of inspection of psychiatric hospitals (arts. 2, 11 and 16). The Committee urges the State party to establish fully independent bodies with the capacity to perform independent and effective unannounced visit to places detention and ensure that their members include diverse and qualified legal and medical professionals familiar with the relevant international standards, as well as independent experts and other representatives of civil society. The State party should also ensure that members are afforded an opportunity to inspect all places of detention without prior notice and speak privately with detainees, and that their findings and recommendations are made public in a timely and transparent manner. Furthermore, the State party should make public detailed information on the place, time and periodicity of visits to places of deprivation of liberty, including psychiatric hospitals, and on the findings and the follow-up on the outcome of such visits. Such information should also be submitted to the Committee. 14. The Committee is concerned at the lack of access for international monitoring mechanisms, both governmental and non-governmental, to detention facilities in Belarus. The Committee also expresses regret at the outstanding request for a country visit by the five mandate holders of the special procedures, particularly the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture and the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, and 5