they understand.6 This “trinity of rights” should apply as from the very outset of deprivation of liberty by the police – that is, when the person concerned is obliged to remain with the police. The main reason for this has repeatedly emerged from the CPT’s findings: it is during the first hours of deprivation of liberty by the police that the risk of ill-treatment is at its highest. 67. The CPT has progressively developed additional safeguards (such as appropriate record-keeping and the establishment of a single comprehensive custody register), as well as other specific safeguards for vulnerable groups, such as juveniles, persons with mental health problems or foreign nationals.7 68. The CPT has noted with satisfaction that many states have followed its recommendations by incorporating procedural safeguards into their legislation. Nevertheless, the Committee has also found that, despite the existence of detailed legal provisions, the practical implementation of these safeguards frequently displays serious shortcomings. For instance, the Committee has observed undue delays in access to a lawyer (in particular, it is often the case that legal aid lawyers see their clients only after a first police interview or even not until the time of the first court hearing, thereby depriving the detained persons concerned of an important safeguard against police ill-treatment). In addition, medical examinations of persons in police custody are often carried out in a superficial manner and/or in the presence of police officers. Further, in a few countries, the introduction of procedural safeguards has led to the emergence of unwanted police practices, such as the questioning of suspects in unofficial places of detention, without the very fact of their deprivation of liberty being recorded and/or without any possibility of them being able to exercise any of the above-mentioned rights. 69. The introduction of legal safeguards is thus not an end in itself; experience has shown that in practice they can be circumvented as long as police officers – with the sanction of senior police officials – believe that ill-treating apprehended persons and suspects is an acceptable or even necessary and efficient way of carrying out police activities. 70. Practitioners in countries that have come a long way in overcoming police ill-treatment often refer to a change of police culture, or even a change of culture within the criminal justice system as a whole, as the key factor. In a number of states, the CPT is indeed pleased to witness positive developments in the manner in which persons in police custody are treated. It has even observed and supported significant culture changes within police services, such as in Georgia. 71. A change of mindset starts with competitive and rigorous recruitment processes based on strict selection criteria, ensuring that the composition of the police force 6. See also Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings, and Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings, and on the right to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and to communicate with third persons and with consular authorities while deprived of liberty. 7. See substantive sections of previous general reports of the CPT on police issues: CPT/Inf (92) 3, paragraphs 36 ff., CPT/Inf (2002) 15, paragraphs 34 ff., and CPT/Inf (2015) 1, paragraph 98. Preventing police torture and other forms of ill-treatment ► Page 31