- 41 32. The maximum period of police custody for collective crimes (three or more persons), although reduced, remains quite high - up to eight days at the request of a public prosecutor and by decision of a judge. In this regard, the CPT wishes to emphasise that in the interests of the prevention of ill-treatment, it is essential that the person in custody be physically brought before the judge to whom the request for an extension of the custody period is submitted. The new Law is not clear on this point. 33. Although the precise content of the right of access to a lawyer is impressive (cf. in particular sections 14, 15 and 20 of the Law), a potential flaw lies in the fact that, with the exception of persons who are under the age of 18 or disabled, a lawyer will only be appointed if the person in custody so requests. A failsafe procedure will have to be found that ensures detainees are (as the Law requires) informed of their right to appoint a lawyer and not subjected to pressure when considering the exercise of that right. The same point applies as regards the right of persons in custody to make known to a relative of their choice that they have been apprehended. Care will also have to be taken that the possibility offered to take a statement, in certain cases, in the absence of the lawyer appointed by the person detained is not abused. 34. Under the new provisions, public prosecutors are in an even better position to exercise considerable influence over the manner in which police officers perform their duties and, more specifically, treat persons in their custody. The CPT very much hopes that they will make effective use of the possibilities open to them, with a view to the prevention of ill-treatment. 35. The new Law is silent on the question of the right of persons in police or gendarmerie custody to have access to a doctor. However, by a circular issued by the Ministry of the Interior on 21 September 1992, a right of access to a doctor in the form previously recommended by the CPT (i.e. a right for the detainee to be examined by a doctor chosen by him - if appropriate from among a list of doctors agreed with the relevant professional body - in addition to any examination carried out by a state-employed doctor) was recognised. The CPT welcomes this development, though the inclusion of this right in a law would be preferable. Previous circulars relating to important safeguards for detained persons have remained a dead letter. 36. Finally, it should be re-emphasised that the phenomenon of torture and other forms of ill-treatment by the police will not be eradicated by legislative fiat alone. It shall always be possible for the impact of legal provisions to be diminished by ever more expertly applied techniques of ill-treatment. Indeed, it can legitimately be advanced that attacking the root of the problem of torture and ill-treatment involves not so much changing laws as transforming mentalities. This process is required not simply amongst police officers but throughout the criminal justice system. * * *