CAT/C/LIE/CO/3 “at the time of apprehension or immediately thereafter” (art. 128a). Noting its restrictions during interrogations, the Committee welcomes information by the State party that the Code of Criminal Procedure is under complete revision and will stipulate that any person being interviewed or interrogated by the police will have the right to have a lawyer present during the first police investigation. However, the Committee is concerned that, at present, the legal instructions handed out to foreign nationals provide the arrested person with the choice between the right to inform either a family member or a lawyer (arts. 2, 11 and 12) The State party should ensure the inclusion in the revised Code of Criminal Procedure the right of all persons deprived of their liberty to have access to a lawyer as from the very outset of their deprivation of liberty, without any restrictions. The legal instructions handed out to foreign nationals upon their arrest should be redrafted so as to guarantee in practice both the right to have access to a lawyer and to inform a family member. Separation of responsibilities between corrections and investigations authorities 12. The Committee notes with concern the lack of separation of competencies between the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Home Affairs in the correctional system of the State party, and, as noted by the Corrections Commission, “the continuing competence and organizational influence of the police authorities with regard to the field of corrections”. The Committee notes with appreciation, however, that the recommendation of the Corrections Commission to this effect is currently examined in the light of expert advice from Austria (art. 2). The State party should ensure full and exclusive competence by the Ministry of Justice over the correctional system of the State party, as recommended by the Corrections Commission in 2008 and 2009. Legal status, mandate and composition of the national preventive mechanism 13. The Committee welcomes the establishment of the Corrections Commission as the national preventive mechanism of the State party, which became operational in 2008. The Committee notes with appreciation reports on the existence of very good collaboration between the authorities and the Corrections Commission during its visits to Vaduz National Prison in 2009, the State party’s efforts to follow up and make public its recommendations, including the translation of its Annual Report 2009 into English. While noting the direct applicability of the Optional Protocol in the State party, the Committee is nevertheless concerned that the mandate of the Corrections Commission as the State party’s national preventive mechanism is not specified in the Execution of Sentences Act which still determines the number of visits that the Corrections Commission can carry out on an annual basis without notice. In addition, the Committee is concerned that article 17, paragraph 3, of the Execution of Sentences Act relating to the composition of the Corrections Commission, according to which at least two out of the five members should not be in the service of the National Public Administration, may compromise its independence (art. 2). The State party should amend the Execution of Sentences Act with a view to ensuring that the mandate and powers of the Corrections Commission as the national preventive mechanism of the State party are clearly specified in law in accordance with articles 17 to 23 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention. In this respect, attention should be paid to article 18, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol which calls upon States parties to give due consideration to the Paris Principles relating to the Status of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and to the importance of a public, inclusive and transparent process in the appointment of its members. 4