(b)Notification of deprivation of liberty 50.Under the legislation in force at the time of the visit (Code of Judicial Procedure, chapter 24, section 9), the police had a duty to notify the immediate relatives or other persons particularly close to the person concerned of the arrest (anhållandet) as soon as this could be done without causing harm to the investigation. However, at the locations visited the delegation was informed that usually the family is notified as soon as possible, generally about two or three hours after the apprehension, if the person concerned wishes that the family be notified and if there is no risk that the notification would hinder investigations. At Uppsala the delegation was also told that there is rarely any reason to assume that this notification would hinder investigations. The delegation thus understood that, in practice, the family could be notified even if the person was apprehended but not arrested. 51.The SPT notes with concern, however, that from the interviews with the detainees the delegation understood that not all detainees were systematically informed about the right to have a family member notified of the custody. Furthermore, some detainees alleged delays in the notification, and even alleged that the exercise of this right was denied. 52.The authorities informed the delegation that upon entry into force of the new act on 1 April 2008 (adding a new section 21 a) to Chapter 24 of the Code of Judicial Procedure), the family members or a relative of a person apprehended (gripen) by the police must be notified about the deprivation of liberty as soon as it may be done without harming the investigations. However, if the individual concerned does not wish his/her relatives to be informed, this is not done unless there are weighty reasons not to respect the person’s wish. This may be the case, for example, when the person concerned is a minor. 53.The SPT welcomes this new provision and understands that it has entered into force (law 2008:67). However, although it now brings the obligation to notify the deprivation of liberty as from the moment of apprehension, the exception enabling a delay of the notification remains broadly worded. Thus it still allows the police wide discretion as to the actual timing of the notification. The SPT recommends that the Swedish authorities take the necessary steps to ensure that this new provision is effectively applied in practice. The notification should take place as soon as possible after apprehension, and the persons apprehended by the police should be systematically informed about this right. The SPT emphasizes that the possibility to delay the notification should be applied in a restrictive manner; such a delay should always be proportionate and not longer than strictly necessary. 54.In addition to this change made to the Code of Judicial Procedure, the SPT understands that another new provision on notification of deprivation of liberty has entered into force. Under the new section 17 a) of the Police Act, the family members or close relatives of those persons who have been taken into temporary custody (omhändertagits) under the Police Act, some other act listed in its section 11, or are otherwise obliged to stay with the police, shall be notified of the deprivation of liberty. This provision covers, for example, all cases where a person is brought or invited to give a statement to the police but is not suspected of having committed a crime. The SPT welcomes this new provision and recommends that the Swedish authorities take the necessary steps to ensure it is effectively applied also in practice, and that all persons obliged to stay with the police are systematically informed about this right. (c)Access to a lawyer 55.Under section 3 of the chapter 21 of the Code of Judicial Procedure, a person suspected of having committed a crime has a right to have defence counsel (försvarare) present at a police questioning. Furthermore, the SPT understands that after the entry into force, on 1 April 2008, of the amendments made to section 10 of chapter 23 of the above mentioned Code, any person heard by the police during preliminary investigation has now a right to have counsel (biträde) present when giving a statement to the police, provided that this is not to the detriment of the investigation. These persons include, among other, those who are not yet reasonably suspected (skäligen misstänkta) of having committed a crime but who may become a suspect as well as witnesses. The persons concerned have to request this possibility and must cover the expenses of such assistance themselves or benefit from pro bono assistance. 56. The SPT welcomes this new provision as it now allows the presence of counsel from the very beginning of the deprivation of liberty and for all persons obliged to remain with the police. It also reflects the fact that the person giving statement to the police is not necessary a suspect but may later become one . The SPT recommends that the Swedish authorities take the necessary steps to ensure that this new provision is effectively applied in practice and that the persons obliged to stay with the police are systematically informed about this right. 57.In spite of this positive change in legislation, the SPT decided to study further the question of access to a lawyer, including the appointment of a public defence counsel. 58.As noted above, under chapter 21, section 3 of the Code of Judicial Procedure, in preparing and conducting his defence, a suspect may be assisted by defence counsel. Under chapter 21, section 3 a), a public defence counsel (offentlig försvarare) shall be appointed in the following three cases: the suspect under arrest (anhållen) or remanded in custody (häktad) so requests; the person is suspected of having committed a serious crime as defined in that section; and in cases laid down in paragraph 2 of that section. Furthermore, the delegation was informed by the Swedish Bar Association that in practice, a person questioned by the police (who is not arrested or detained) cannot have a public defence counsel appointed until he or she is formally notified, in accordance with chapter 23, section 18 of the Code Judicial Procedure, of being reasonably suspected (skäligen misstänkt) of committing the offence. 59.Under chapter 24, section 8 of the Code of Judicial Procedure, a police officer or a prosecutor shall question as soon as possible anyone apprehended by the police (the so called 24 (8) questioning). The SPT understands that this is also the first questioning of the person by the police. During the visits to police stations, the delegation was informed that, before the police will start conducting this questioning, the apprehended person is asked whether he wishes defence counsel to be present. In the affirmative, the questioning is interrupted until counsel can be present. At a police station visited, the delegation was informed that in practice, if the suspect does not have defence counsel, the police may contact the prosecutor for an arrest decision in order for public defence counsel to be