appointed. Also some of the detainees interviewed noted that the first questioning was postponed until the moment the defence counsel could be present; however, some detainees alleged that it took several days before this happened. 60.The SPT is concerned about the fact that, although under the legislation in force all suspects now seem to enjoy equal access to a lawyer from the outset of the deprivation of liberty, in practice those persons who are dependent on the system of public defence cannot enjoy this right before the strict requirements set out in section 3 a) are met. Furthermore, the formal notification of a person as a suspect in accordance with chapter 23, section 18 of the Code of Judicial Procedure does not necessarily take place in the beginning of the so called 24 (8) questioning, and under chapter 24, section 8 of the aforementioned Code, the prosecutor should take the possible decision to arrest after that questioning has taken place. The new provision on the possibility to have a counsel present in preliminary investigations does not change this assumption (although the requirements for professional qualifications for counsel are similar to those of a defence counsel), as not all persons may benefit from this assistance, for example due to financial reasons. 61.From a preventive point of view, access to a lawyer is an important safeguard against ill treatment which is a broader concept than providing legal assistance solely for conducting one’s defence. The presence of a lawyer in the police questioning may not only deter the police from resorting to ill-treatment or other abuses during questioning but it may also work as a protection for police officers in case they face unfounded allegations of ill-treatment, both of which situations undermine mutual trust. In addition, the lawyer is the key person in assisting the person deprived of liberty in exercising his or her rights, including access to complaints mechanisms. Furthermore, delayed access to a defence counsel would be unfortunate since it is often the information given at the first questioning which is of decisive importance for the outcome of the criminal proceedings. The SPT emphasizes that all persons deprived of their liberty should enjoy equal access to a lawyer and that as early a stage of the deprivation of liberty as possible, preferably already at the first police questioning. In light of the above, the SPT recommends that the authorities ensure that all persons enjoy equal access to defence counsel not only in law but also in practice. Necessary steps should be taken to extend the right to public defence counsel to as early a stage of the deprivation of liberty as possible. (d)Access to a doctor 62.The Swedish legislation does not include a specific legal provision on access to a doctor for a person held by the police.In the absence of such a provision, whether a person is transported to the hospital or a request to see a doctor is granted is decided by the officer in charge. 63.However, in the locations visited, the delegation was informed that in practice medical assistance is provided in all cases of obvious need. The officers in charge at different police stations visited indicated that, if a person apprehended by the police or held in police custody bears symptoms of illness or marks of injuries, or if his/her state of intoxication may cause health problems, the police would escort such a person to a public hospital. Persons held by the police could also see a doctor upon request. At Solna police station the delegation was informed that it is also possible to call a doctor to come there; the doctor is on call and would come within one hour. 64.From the discussions with the officers in charge at locations and interviews with the detainees, the delegation concluded that access to a doctor was not problematic in practice.However, the SPT regrets that requests to see a doctor are evaluated and thus left to the discretion of the police officer in charge. From the point of view of prevention of illtreatment, it is important that the duties of the police officers towards persons under their responsibility are clearly established in law. This would not only allow the persons deprived of their liberty to properly exercise their rights, but would also rule out the risk that some police officers would use their discretionary powers in a restrictive manner. The SPT emphasizes that requests to see a doctors should not be screened by police officers and recommends the right to have access to a doctor be firmly established in a specific legal provision and that the persons obliged to stay with the police are systematically informed about this right at the outset of the custody. (e)Recording of custody 65.The registers were kept in a systematic manner and included detailed information on the full period spent in police custody. Issues regarding recording of custody are discussed in greater detail in section III. B, (a) (iii) below. (f)Conclusions 66.The recommendations of the SPT concerning the basic safeguards are laid down in the respective sections above. In conclusion, the SPT would like to stress that basic safeguards should be formally provided by law with all possible exceptions clearly identified. Application of such basic safeguards should never depend merely on the good will and understanding of staff. 2. Allegations of ill-treatment 67.Section 12 of Chapter 23 of the Code of Judicial Procedure specifically prohibits eliciting confession or a statement of particular implication by using false information, promises or hints of special advantage, threats, force and questioning for an unreasonable length of time during questioning. 68.The SPT welcomes the fact that the delegation did not receive any allegations of ill treatment by the police at the time of apprehension or during interrogations. There were no allegations of ill-treatment by staff during the time spent in custody either. The detainees generally referred to a correct and professional approach and attitude on the part of police officers, investigators and wardens, the only exception being a few complaints of use of harsh language by staff in some police stations.