A/HRC/28/68/Add.3 C. Safeguards 1. Legal defence 42. The Special Rapporteur observed various cases in which victims of torture and illtreatment did not have prompt, confidential access to adequate legal counsel from the moment of their detention, in violation of international standards and national law. Detainees usually do not see or meet their lawyer or public defender until they make their first statement before the Public Prosecution Service, and sometimes not until they are brought before the judge. The Special Rapporteur notes that, in the case of the Federal Investigation Centre, detainees have access to a lawyer only if the Attorney General’s Office has given its authorization. This places them in a vulnerable situation, especially since the same authority is responsible for conducting the investigation, enforcing detention and authorizing the visit. 43. The representation provided by public defenders for defendants who are victims of torture and ill-treatment is often inadequate. The Special Rapporteur was told of cases where detainees gave statements incriminating themselves in the presence of police or ministerial police officers from the forces responsible for committing or acquiescing in torture and these statements were signed by public defenders who were present in the chamber but had not identified themselves to the defendant. He was also told of cases where defence lawyers had dissuaded defendants from complaining of torture in order to speed up the trial. 44. One positive Supreme Court decision rules that inadequate defence must be taken into account for excluding evidence from a trial.10 The Special Rapporteur urges that this practice be strengthened, as well as any measure needed to guarantee detainees a proper defence from the moment they are detained. 2. Medical examinations 45. The Federal Act on the Prevention and Punishment of Torture stipulates that a medical examination must be carried out at the beginning of detention if the detainee so requests and that any signs of torture or ill-treatment observed in the examination must be recorded and reported. Usually, this examination is not carried out immediately and is incomplete, in that it records the detainee’s general physical and mental state without referring to indications or allegations of torture. Examinations are usually carried out in the presence of the police or ministerial police officers in charge of detention, making it impossible for the detainee to give the doctor a confidential account of what happened and for the doctor to check injuries properly and record them. Doctors tend to be members of staff of the institutions where detainees are held, a situation that undermines their independence and impartiality. 46. Medical examinations are also important because they are useful for detecting the need for immediate medical care, which the State has an obligation to provide. The Special Rapporteur met a person detained on premises of the Baja California attorney general’s office whose leg was badly infected and who had been held for over 24 hours without being examined by a doctor and without access to a lawyer, water or food. 3. Detention without a warrant 47. The Special Rapporteur observed a tendency to detain in order to investigate, rather than investigate in order to detain. This tendency is being reinforced by the constitutional 10 GE.14-25288 Supreme Court of Justice, Amparo Review No. 90/2014. 11