CAT/OP/KAZ/1 assistance is provided to suspects. Lawyers must be provided with unhindered access to their clients, without the need for any approval from prosecutors or investigators. 4. Medical screening 49. Initial medical screening is normally conducted upon arrival at temporary detention facilities (IVS). However, it appears that the screening is routinely conducted in the presence of police officers and superficially, and that the person conducting the screening reports to the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Also, the Subcommittee learned that the initial screening is performed unevenly across the country. During transfers, the results of medical screening are kept in the personal files of inmates, making it impossible for the oversight mechanisms to have the full picture of the number of people delivered with injuries. 50. The Subcommittee recommends that initial medical screenings be carried out rigorously, and that clear and detailed records be established, which should be accessible at all times as part of the record of any detention facility. Medical personnel conducting such screenings should be independent from the administration of the detention facility to allow for impartial results and proper follow-up. The Subcommittee recommends that the State party improve its training of medical personnel, particularly on the Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Istanbul Protocol) and other international standards. In addition, the Subcommittee recommends that health professionals immediately report suspicions of torture and ill-treatment to appropriate authorities so that an independent examination may be conducted in accordance with the Istanbul Protocol. The confidential medical report should be made available to the detainee and to his or her counsel. 5. Registers, books, video monitoring 51. The Subcommittee welcomes that in several locations an electronic database system and video monitoring were functioning. However, while numerous records and registers exist in temporary detention facilities, including lists of detainees, paper-based recordkeeping is inconsistent and incoherent in all places visited, and in police stations visitor registers do not reflect the movements of the persons brought in from other pretrial detention facilities. 52. The Subcommittee recommends that a single online registry be established to avoid duplication and confusion. The system should allow for a quick search of any person, to ensure that information can be accessed as needed by the prosecutors, next of kin and lawyers. The State party must ensure that all detainees and arrestees are registered and accounted for, and that their exact location is known at all times. B. Authorization of detention 53. Interlocutors generally reported adherence to procedural time frames, such as being brought before a judge within 72 hours of the initial arrest. 5 The detainees, in some cases, were taken before a judge just before the time limit expired. According to reports, including official figures, the judge approves the prosecutor’s request for detention in about 90 per cent of cases. Court hearings were reported to be short and ineffective; judges are generally seen as rubber-stamping decisions proposed by the prosecutor. Additionally, judges almost never ask questions about treatment by law enforcement officials. While defence lawyers are usually present, they are said not to actively seek the detainee’s release, ask questions or present any evidence. 54. It appears that detainees, as a rule, are not present when decisions on prolonging detention are taken. By law, a judge may request the detained person to be brought before him or her but, as reported by numerous interviewees, this does not happen in practice. In best-case scenarios, detainees are given copies of the decision prolonging their detention, 5 See Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 131. 9