identification number on their uniforms). As highlighted by the European Court of Human Rights in its case-law, it may be legitimate for police officers to resort to force in the context of an apprehension. However, such force should be used only if it is lawful and strictly necessary, and it should not be excessive. Failure to meet these basic requirements may amount to a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.5 It should also be noted that CPT delegations have frequently found evidence of unduly tight handcuffing, which can have serious medical consequences. In addition, on many occasions they have heard allegations of verbal abuse, including racist remarks. The CPT has also observed that certain categories of person (such as persons with mental health problems and juveniles) could run a higher risk of illtreatment during apprehension due to their specific vulnerabilities. 65. The infliction of ill-treatment during or in the context of police interviews remains a very serious problem in a significant number of Council of Europe member states. Within the last ten years, the CPT has received credible allegations, and gathered forensic medical and other evidence, of police ill-treatment which could be qualified as torture in almost one-third of Council of Europe member states. The alleged ill-treatment consisted inter alia of the infliction of electric shocks, blows to the soles of the feet, suspension or hyperextension by means of handcuffs, infliction of burns to various parts of the body, asphyxiation with a plastic bag or a gas mask, handcuffing of detained persons in stress positions for hours on end, severe beatings and mock executions. The CPT also continues to hear accounts of other forms of police ill-treatment, from slaps to more brutal forms of abuse. The deliberate nature of such treatment is evident. The treatment alleged was often applied by apprehending/operational officers in the initial period of custody and prior to a first formal police interview, for the purpose of obtaining a confession or other information. The CPT’s findings suggest that, in some cases, police crime investigators have condoned or even encouraged such practices. In this connection, the possibility for police officers of inviting or summoning persons for “informal talks”, “collecting information” or “explanations” is provided for in a number of countries under a simplified procedure. The CPT has on numerous occasions noted that the risk of ill-treatment was higher precisely in situations of this kind and that informal questioning of “persons of interest” was abused in order, inter alia, to deny procedural safeguards that would apply to persons formally considered as criminal suspects. Professional policing 66. As part of its preventive mandate, the CPT has consistently highlighted the importance of three procedural safeguards, namely: the right of access to a lawyer, the right of access to a doctor and the right to have the fact of one’s detention notified to a relative or another third party of one’s choice. This presupposes that persons deprived of their liberty are duly informed of these rights, both orally upon apprehension and, as soon as possible, in writing (e.g. through a “letter of rights” or other document setting out the rights of persons in police custody) in a language 5. Reference can be made, for instance, to the judgments Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 100-113, ECHR 2015, Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, §§ 71-78, ECHR 2000-XII, and Layijov v. Azerbaijan, no. 22062/07, §§ 39-48, 10 April 2014. Page 30 ►General Report of the CPT, 2018