7. Access to a lawyer as a safeguard against ill-treatment 103.As noted in the chapter I section B 7 above, section 2 (a) of the 2004 Regulations on Seeking and Obtaining Assistance of a Lawyer provides that, in any case being investigated on suspicion of an offence, the person being investigated shall be given the opportunity to seek the assistance of a lawyer. However, section 11 clearly stipulates that it shall be the responsibility of the accused to select the lawyer and also cover all the costs relating to this assistance. 104.The delegation gained the impression that this right was not realized in practice as the vast majority of detainees interviewed stated that they were unable to afford a lawyer privately and therefore were not legally represented during their time in police custody. Furthermore, some of the detainees interviewed alleged that, even though they could have afforded a lawyer, their requests to contact one were simply ignored or even denied by the police. For example, some detainees held in the Dhoonidhoo Detention Centre reported that, following an incident in November 2007, several of them were beaten and their requests to have a lawyer were denied. The delegation also heard allegations to the effect that the detainees were made to wait for access to a lawyer for prolonged periods of time, up to 96 hours. 105.The presence of a lawyer during police interrogation can have a deterrent effect on individuals who might otherwise try to obtain information or confessions by force from people in their custody. If the detained person has a right to consult with a lawyer in private as from the outset of custody, the detainee is also able to report any ill-treatment experienced; on the detainee’s request the lawyer can lodge a complaint. If such information is expressed under professional secrecy, it may still be used anonymously to prevent abusive practices in future. The presence of a lawyer during police questioning may also work as a protection for police officers in case they face unfounded allegations of ill-treatment. The right to a lawyer as from the first moment of deprivation of liberty is therefore an important means of preventing ill-treatment, as well as a safeguard of due process of law. 106.However, the preventive value of access to a lawyer depends upon whether or not this right to a lawyer can be exercised in practice. If people deprived of liberty cannot afford a lawyer and one is not provided, the right to a lawyer and its value in the prevention of ill-treatment remain purely theoretical. The SPT emphasizes that all persons deprived of their liberty should enjoy access to a lawyer and that at as early a stage of the deprivation of liberty as possible, including already at the first police questioning. 107.In light of the above, the SPT recommends that the authorities ensure that all persons deprived of their liberty are entitled to benefit from the assistance of a lawyer as from the outset of deprivation of liberty. They should be systematically informed about this right by the police and be provided with reasonable facilities to consult a lawyer in private. Furthermore, if a detainee does not have a lawyer of his/her own choice, he/she should be entitled to have one assigned to him/her, and benefit from free legal assistance if he/she does not have sufficient means to pay. 8. Access to a doctor as a safeguard against ill-treatment 108.If a person deprived of liberty is ill-treated by the police, that person may quite understandably be afraid, while still in the hands of the police, to tell someone else about it. If the person does want to complain about the ill-treatment, a doctor could be a likely choice, since doctors are supposed to work independently of security forces and since consultations with doctors are supposed to be private and confidential. Furthermore, if any injuries have been inflicted, the doctor is best placed and equipped to examine and record these. 109.From the preventive perspective, if persons deprived of liberty are routinely examined by a doctor in private while in police custody, this may have a deterrent effect on any officer who might resort to ill-treatment. The SPT considers that access to a doctor without the presence of police staff is an important safeguard against ill-treatment. 110.However, from accounts by doctors, police officers, and detainees it became clear that such routine examinations were carried out neither in local police stations nor in major detention centres. Moreover, the delegation learnt that the police officers were systematically present when detainees saw a doctor. Thus it appeared that no culture of medical confidentiality existed in the encounter between the patient and the doctor. Furthermore, on numerous occasions the delegation heard that, as a routine, patients were handcuffed while interviewed and examined by the doctor. This routine practice is not acceptable and constitutes degrading treatment. It is also undermines confidence between the patient and the doctor. 111. The SPT recommends that the authorities introduce systematic medical examination of all persons in police custody and that these examinations are carried out without using any restraints measures. The SPT also recommends that medical examinations be conducted in accordance with the principle of medical confidentiality; non-medical persons, other than the patient, should not be present. In exceptional cases, where a doctor so requests, special security arrangements may be considered relevant, such as having a police officer within call. The doctor should note this assessment in the records, as well as the names of all persons present. However, police officers should always stay out of hearing and preferably out of sight of a medical examination. 112.In addition to proper medical examination, proper recording of injuries of persons deprived of their liberty by the police is an important safeguard, contributing to the prevention of ill treatment as well as to combating impunity. Thorough recording of injuries may well deter those who might otherwise resort to ill-treatment. The SPT recommends that every routine medical examinations is carried out using a standard form that includes (a) a medical history (b) an account by the person examined of any violence (c) the result of the thorough physical examination, including a description of any injuries and (d) where the doctor ’ s training so allows, an assessment as to consistency between the three first items. The medical record should, upon request from the detainee, be made available to him/her or to his/her lawyer. 9. Recording of custody as a safeguard against ill-treatment