(11) The Committee notes with concern the Government’s acknowledgement of frequent violations of the Code of Criminal Procedure by State party officials as regards the conduct of an interrogation within a 24-hour period, detention prior to the institution of criminal proceedings, notification of relatives of the suspect or accused person of that person’s detention within 24 hours, and the right to counsel. The Committee is also concerned that most of the rules and instructions of the Ministry of Interior, the Prosecutor’s Office and especially the National Security Committee are classified as “for internal use only” and are not in the realm of public documents. These rules leave many issues to the discretion of the officials, which results in claims that, in practice, detainees are not always afforded the rights of access to fundamental safeguards (art. 2). The State party should ensure that all rules and instructions with regard to the custody, detention and interrogation of persons subjected to any forms of arrest or detention are made public. The State party should further ensure that every detainee can exercise the right to access a lawyer, an independent doctor and contact a family member to ensure effective protection from torture and ill-treatment from the moment of apprehension. (12) The Committee notes with concern reports that law enforcement bodies sometimes use illegal investigation methods during interrogations of minors, such as threats, blackmailing and sometimes even physical abuse. Such interrogations are allegedly often conducted in the absence of the parents or teacher of the minor, although their presence is required by law. The Committee is further concerned at reports that juveniles may be held in pretrial detention for prolonged periods and that they are often not granted the right to receive relatives during that period (arts. 2 and 11). The State party should increase its efforts to bring legislation and practice as regards the arrest, detention and interrogation of juvenile offenders fully in line with internationally adopted principles. The State party should, inter alia, ensure training of law enforcement personnel to raise their professional qualification in working with juveniles, ensure that deprivation of liberty, including pretrial detention, is the exception and is used for the shortest time possible and develop and implement alternatives to deprivation of liberty. (13) The Committee is concerned that article 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for forced placement of suspects and defendants at the stage of pretrial investigation in medical institutions in order to conduct a forensic psychiatric expert evaluation. The Committee notes with further concern that the grounds for making such a decision are subjective and that the law fails to regulate the maximum duration of forced placement into a medical institution, as well as to guarantee the right to be informed of and to challenge methods of medical treatment or intervention (art. 2). The State party should amend the Code of Criminal Procedure so as to ensure that compulsory placement of suspects and defendants at the stage of pretrial investigation into medical facilities to conduct forensic psychiatric expert evaluation must be pursuant to a court decision and based on objective criteria. The State party should also ensure that the duration of such placement is limited by law and that suspects and defendants have the right to be informed of and to challenge methods of medical treatment or intervention. Non-refoulement (14) The Committee is concerned at the lack of a legislative framework regulating expulsion, refoulement and extradition. Even if fewer extraditions have been reported since 2005, the Committee is concerned at the fact that the State party’s current expulsion, refoulement and extradition procedures and practices may expose individuals to the risk of torture. In particular, the Committee notes with concern allegations that the Minsk Convention on Legal Assistance for Persons from the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) does not protect CIS citizens who might have valid claims for refugee status from refoulement (arts. 3 and 8). The State party should adopt a legislative framework regulating expulsion, refoulement and extradition in fulfilment of its obligation under article 3 of the Convention. The State party should ensure that priority is given to the provisions of the Convention over any less protective bilateral or multilateral agreements on extradition and guarantee that persons whose application for asylum have 37