CAT/OP/KAZ/1 respected during criminal processes. 3 In reality, members of the judiciary appear to deviate only rarely from decisions taken by the prosecutors and are not viewed as independent actors by detainees. Similarly, there is a lack of trust of defence lawyers. This leads to a situation in which the overwhelming majority of suspects do not have effective avenues of redress. The Subcommittee is concerned that there is ample opportunity for putting pressure on suspects, with little effective control by any independent actors. 42. The Subcommittee recommends that the State party reform the system of prosecution, ensure that only independent judges take decisions on restrictions on the human rights of suspects and accused persons, and reinforce oversight of the activities of investigators. A. Safeguards 1. Information about rights 43. Leaflets outlining the rights of detained persons were posted visibly in almost all institutions visited. Detainees informed the delegation that, normally, their rights were formally read or given to them. The Subcommittee received allegations that some foreigners had not had access to interpretation. 44. The Subcommittee recommends that all arrested persons be immediately informed of the reasons for their arrest, and their rights as detainees, in a language they understand. 2. Communication of the detention and information to the next of kin 45. Many interlocutors highlighted issues relating to how next of kin were informed about detentions. The Subcommittee was informed that, in some cases, investigators delayed notification of the family as a means of putting pressure on the suspect, with a view to obtaining a confession. In several instances, detainees allegedly were able to use the investigator’s office telephone to call anywhere, provided they cooperated. Also, authorization of visits with next of kin apparently was dependent on cooperation. According to several detainees, such visits were allowed by the administration only with the permission of the investigator in charge of the criminal case. 46. The Subcommittee recommends that persons deprived of liberty be able to immediately inform a family member or other next of kin of their detention. The exercise of that right should not depend on the prosecutor or investigator, or the administration of the detention facility. Any decision by investigators or prosecutors to restrict the right to inform the next of kin must be for objective and verifiable reasons related to the investigation and subject to judicial review. 3. Access to a lawyer 47. The Subcommittee notes the legal aid system in place and that the law requires defence lawyers to be present from the first interrogation. However, according to consistent reports, State-provided lawyers enjoy practically no trust because of a lack of diligence, delays and the perception that they work in collusion with investigators. Some interlocutors reported that first interrogations are done without the presence of a lawyer, and that lawyers sometimes signed documents post-factum. Further eroding the confidence in, and independence of, State-provided lawyers is the fact that their expense reports must be signed by judges or investigators. 4 “Public defenders” – usually close relatives of the detainee – have regular access to the detainee. The process to become a public defender was described as burdensome, and depended on permission from the police. 48. Persons deprived of liberty must have access to legal counsel of their choice, and if needed, a State-provided lawyer. The Subcommittee recommends that the system and remuneration of State-provided lawyers be reviewed to ensure effective 3 4 8 Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 54 (3). It was also reported that the investigators must approve the lawyer’s access to the client.