C. Principal subjects of concern and recommendations Definition of torture (6) Notwithstanding the State party’s assertion that, under the Hungarian Criminal Code (section 226 on ill-treatment in official proceedings, section 227 on forced interrogation and section 228 on unlawful detention), all acts that may be described as “torture” within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention are punishable, the Committee observes that all elements of the definition of torture as provided by article 1 of the Convention are still not included in the Criminal Code of the State party. The State party should adopt a definition of torture that covers all the elements contained in article 1 of the Convention. Pretrial detention (7) The Committee expresses its concern at the length of the initial pretrial detention phase (up to 72 hours), at ongoing pretrial detention on police premises and the high risk of ill-treatment which it entails and greatly regrets that pretrial detention of up to three years is provided for under the Criminal Procedure Act. Furthermore, the Committee is concerned that pretrial detainees under and over 18 years are accommodated in the same cell in the course of the procedure and notes that the need for separation of children and adults is included in the Draft Penitentiary Code (arts. 2, 11 and 16). The State party should take appropriate measures to ensure that its pretrial detention policy meets international standards, including by reducing pretrial detention on police premises, further reducing the period of pretrial detention and using the alternative measures outlined in the Code of Criminal Proceedings under the chapter “Coercive Measures” in cases where the accused does not pose a threat to society. Furthermore, the State party should take the necessary measures to ensure that children in pretrial detention are kept separately from adults, and adopt the Draft Penitentiary Code. Fundamental safeguards (8) The Committee is concerned at allegations that fundamental legal safeguards for persons detained by the police or Border Guard staff, including the rights of access to a lawyer and medical examination, are not being observed in all situations. In this respect, the Committee notes with concern that a high number of persons with an ex officio defence counsel remain without actual assistance from their attorney in the investigation phase of the procedure. Furthermore, the Committee is concerned at information that the compulsory medical examination upon arrival at the police station is often carried out by physicians who are not independent from the police and in the physical presence of police officers, and that the same applies in the case of illegal foreigners in the presence of Border Guard staff (arts. 2, 13 and 16). The State party should take effective measures to ensure that the fundamental legal safeguards for persons detained by the police or Border Guard staff are respected, including the right to inform a relative, have access to a lawyer as well as to an independent medical examination or a doctor of their own choice, and the right to receive information about their rights. The State party should, inter alia, ensure that: (a) Persons in the custody of police or Border Guard staff benefit from an effective right of access to a lawyer, as from the very outset of their deprivation of liberty; (b) Police officers and Border Guard staff are not present during medical examinations of persons under custody in order to guarantee the confidentiality of medical information, save under exceptional and justifiable circumstances (i.e. risk of physical aggression). 20