32. Giving feedback to persons in police custody – whether or not it was possible to reach a family member or other person - appears to pose another challenge to police officers. The CPT observed a positive practice in Georgia, where detainees gave the officer the number, and the officer would call the indicated person in the presence of the detainee. In Spain, persons in police custody have the right to directly communicate by telephone, in the presence of a police officer, with a third person of their choice, and in England and Wales the right to personally make a phone call can only be limited if the person in question is suspected of a serious crime.25 33. The “Code of Practice for the Detention, Treatment and Questioning of Persons by Police Officers” (Code C) of England and Wales further provides that if a person indicated cannot be contacted the detainee may choose up to two alternatives. If they cannot be contacted, the person in charge of detention or the investigation has discretion to allow further attempts until the information has been conveyed. 34. In any case, the fact that a third person has been successfully notified should be recorded in writing, with the name, number and exact time when notification has taken place; conversely, if a detained person does not wish to have anyone informed, this should be recorded in the custody record, too, and countersigned by the detainee. 35. Finally, the notification of custody of foreign detainees, who do not have relatives or close friends in the country of their detention, can cause difficulties. The CPT has noted that informing an embassy is not a substitute for family notification. In Cyprus, foreign nationals who cannot contact family members and who do not wish to contact a consular representative are by law provided with the right to inform the Office of the Ombudsman of their detention. Could these positive practices be applied in other countries? Right to a lawyer 36. The right to a lawyer as a safeguard to prevent police ill-treatment – as opposed to a guarantee for due process and the right to a fair trial – must meet several criteria in order to serve its preventative purpose. In particular, the right of access to a lawyer must be enjoyed by anyone who is under a legal obligation to attend – and stay at – a police establishment, irrespective of his/her precise legal status (i.e. whether formally declared a suspect or not), as from the outset of the deprivation of liberty. Moreover, lawyers should see their clients in person at the police station, and detainees should be able to speak in private with their lawyer, before they get questioned; lawyers should be able to be present during questioning, including preliminary or informal questioning; and persons who do not have the means to pay for their own lawyer should be provided with effective legal aid. 37. The underlying reasons for promoting these criteria are obvious: the risk of police torture and ill-treatment has often been found to be highest during the first few hours after apprehension; administrative detention and summonses of persons for informative talks are regularly abused for bypassing safeguards that would usually apply to persons who are officially declared suspects; and indigent persons are more likely to be vulnerable to police ill-treatment than those who can afford their own private lawyer. Note that Art. 6 of the EU Directive on Access to a Lawyer provides the right for suspects or accused deprived of their liberty not only to have a third person informed of arrest (Art. 5), but also to communicate with a third person nominated by them (Art. 6), subject to certain limitations. 25 11