Objectively, their concern is not unsubstantiated. Police officers do have unimpeded access to TDFs where victims of torture are held, as was confirmed by the findings of the 2011 monitoring report. In 2011, the project team documented cases when those in custody were taken out of TDFs at night and were handed over to operative officers who could with impunity apply coercive methods to extract confessions; cases when operative officers were allowed to communicate with detainees on the premises of temporary detention facilities were also documented.43 The same cases were documented in the course of the 2012 monitoring study. From a monitoring group report: “They handcuffed me to a radiator and made me hang in an investigation room of the temporary detention facility, then they inserted needles under my fingernails and beat me with clubs on the heels.”44 From a monitoring group report: “I was subjected to torture throughout two months. People in masks entered the cell and beat me up. I could 45 not walk and could barely stand on my feet, and my legs were swollen.” From a monitoring group report: “An operative officer named Mirbek took me out of the TDF. He and other police officers beat me with their fists.”46 From a monitoring group report: 47 “When I was taken out of the TDF for the last time, operative officers beat me up.” From a monitoring group report: “In the TDF operative officers walked in and threatened me on a regular basis.”48 From a monitoring group report: “Five to six DDI officers beat me up, and I remember the names of two of them – Azamat and Meder.”49 From a monitoring group report: “DDI officers beat me up for three days.”50 Undoubtedly, the above is a clear violation of a common rule whereby only the person who is in charge of criminal proceedings has the right to communicate with suspects, including first and foremost those detained on criminal grounds, and such communication has, in all cases, a clearly defined form and purpose. This includes carrying out investigation activities aimed at collecting evidence with the participation of a detained individual. In case operative officers need to meet with a detained person due to special investigation activities carried out by them, such meeting should be possible only with the consent of the person who is in charge of the specific criminal case. By its very nature, this meeting has nothing to do with legal relations, as none of the parties are bound by mutual rights and duties which is the case during investigation activities when every step is regulated by procedural rules.51 43 Report on “Torture prevention in temporary detention facilities under internal affairs bodies of the Kyrgyz Republic,” Bishkek, 2011, p. 106. 44 Monitoring group report, No. 1-7/36. 45 Monitoring group report, No. С1-2. 46 Monitoring group report, No. С6-1. 47 Monitoring group report, No. С4-20. 48 Monitoring group report, No. Р10. 49 Monitoring group report, No. 1-7/36. 50 Monitoring group report, No. 1-2/9. 51 Comment to the CPC of the Russian Federation (article-by-article), Moscow, Vitrem Ltd, 2002, p. 130-131. 57