CAT/C/AZE/CO/4 Fundamental legal safeguards 12. While taking note of the different legislative norms adopted, the Committee expresses serious concern at the State party’s failure in practice to afford all persons deprived of their liberty with all fundamental legal safeguards from the very outset of the deprivation of liberty. The Committee is concerned at reports that during the period immediately following deprivation of liberty detainees are frequently denied access to a lawyer of their choice and are not allowed to contact family members and that police officers forcibly extract confessions. While welcoming the installation, in 63 of the 68 temporary detention facilities, of video surveillance systems, the introduction of medical examinations for all persons detained on remand and the practice of recording the results of the examinations in a medical record opened for each detainee immediately upon arrival, the Committee remains concerned at reports that medical examinations take place in the presence of police officers and that, when injuries are recorded, they do not lead to any investigations into possible torture or ill-treatment (arts. 2, 11-13 and 15-16). 13. The State party should adopt measures to ensure in practice that every person deprived of his or her liberty is afforded legal safeguards against torture from the outset of deprivation of liberty. For example, it should ensure that such persons have prompt and unimpeded access to an independent lawyer of their choice, can contact a family member and can immediately undergo an independent medical examination in full confidentiality. In cases when traces of torture or ill-treatment are recorded during a medical examination, prompt and independent investigations should be conducted. The State party should also ensure that any public official who denies fundamental legal safeguards to persons deprived of their liberty is disciplined or prosecuted, and provide data to the Committee on the number of cases in which public officials have been disciplined for such conduct. Independence of the judiciary 14. While welcoming the extensive information provided by the State party on the functioning of the judicial system and the process of selecting judges, the Committee remains concerned at the lack of independence of the judiciary vis-à-vis the executive branch and its susceptibility to political pressure (art. 14). 15. The Committee reiterates its previous recommendation that the State party should guarantee the full independence and impartiality of the judiciary, give practical effect to the guarantees for judicial independence laid down in its legislation and review the regime of appointment, promotion and dismissal of judges in line with the relevant international standards, including the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary. Independence of lawyers 16. The Committee is concerned at reports that the Bar Association operating in Azerbaijan under the lawyers and legal profession act is not sufficiently independent from the executive and that it has a limited membership; moreover, it is concerned that this has had a negative impact on the independence of the legal profession. The Committee is also concerned at reports that, on many occasions, lawyers defending human rights activists and victims of torture, including Javad Javadov and Khalid Bagirov, have been disbarred, that their licences have been suspended or that they have been called as prosecution witnesses, impeding them from representing their clients (art. 2). 17. The State party should take steps to ensure the independence of lawyers in law and in practice and to protect lawyers from any retaliation for their work in defence of human rights activists and torture victims. 4