29. Persons deprived of their liberty by the police should be requested to sign that they have been informed of their rights, and whenever they waive certain entitlements. In case a person refuses or is not in a position to sign (e.g. because of severe alcohol intoxication), the absence of the signature should be duly explained. Right to notify a third person of arrest 30. According to the conclusions of the above-mentioned study,23 notification of family or friends is the most effective safeguard in preventing torture. This right is guaranteed in law24 throughout all CoE Member States, at least for criminal suspects; a number of States, e.g. Georgia, Norway and San Marino, have made explicit provisions to tend it to all persons deprived of their liberty by the police, including persons apprehended for identification purposes, public order or other administrative detention. Are there legitimate reasons for denying persons who are deprived of their liberty by the police the right to inform a third person of their detention? 31. Apart from legal possibilities to delay this right, the provisions regarding notification of custody, with few exceptions, foresee that this should be done immediately after arrest. However, in practice it appears that family members or other third persons are often only notified after considerable delays, during or after the first official interview with an investigator, when a statement has been drawn up, or even only at arrival in a pre-trial detention facility. A reason for such delays could be that the officers effectuating arrests and/or custody do either genuinely not feel responsible for ensuring that detainees can inform somebody of their arrest, or that they experience insecurities as to whether this information might jeopardise the investigation and therefore rather leave it to the investigators working on the case. In Scotland, during the initial reception process a custody sergeant, after inquiring with the detainee who to contact, would immediately check whether there is any particular reason why the named person should not be informed and, if satisfied that this was not the case, would notify the person. How can communication between officers responsible for custody and criminal investigators be improved in order to allow for an expedient clarification whether there are legal impediments to notifying a specific person of an arrest? What other measures can be taken to keep delays in informing third parties to a minimum? Carver / Handley, Does Torture Prevention Work?, fn. 12. In many States, the right to notify is subject to limitations, which might be imposed to protect the legitimate interests of the police investigation. Note that such exceptions should be clearly defined in law and strictly limited in time, and resort to them should be accompanied by appropriate safeguards, such as recording any delay in writing with the reasons therefore, and the approval of a senior police officer unconnected with the case or a prosecutor. The EU Directive on Access to a Lawyer allows for a limitation of the right to notify a third person only in exceptional circumstances and only “where justified in the light of the particular circumstances of the case on the basis of one of the following compelling reasons: (a) where there is an urgent need to avert serious adverse consequences for the life, liberty or physical integrity of a person; (b) where there is an urgent need to prevent a situation where criminal proceedings could be substantially jeopardised”. The EU Directive also notes that whenever such a limitation is imposed the competent authorities should consider whether another third person could be safely informed of the deprivation of liberty. 23 24 10