83. The CPT has frequently gained a positive impression of the functioning of such central police detention facilities, which can also provide better material conditions for persons in police custody.17 It has also noted the clear benefits of having designated staff who exclusively fulfil the role of custodial officers. In terms of resources, a division of labour between operational officers, custodial officers and investigators can lead to greater specialisation, professionalism and efficiency. By contrast, police officers who have to fulfil dual or even triple roles of apprehending persons suspected of criminal or other offences, looking after the well-being and rights of those who have been apprehended (possibly under difficult circumstances), and interviewing these persons in relation to an offence, will often find it personally challenging to assume all of these roles in a professional manner. 84. A separation of the different police tasks and the creation of a specialised group of custody officers may therefore lead to an enhanced sense of responsibility of such officers for the persons in their charge. It may also possibly break the harmful esprit de corps that often prevents officers from speaking out against their colleagues in cases of ill-treatment. This presupposes that custody officers are empowered by a working environment that acknowledges their important contribution to the professional functioning of any police service. Clear and consistent custody guidelines, which exist in a number of countries, are an important tool for professionalising the implementation of custody.18 85. Introducing designated custody officers could also strengthen the practical implementation of various procedural and other safeguards. While it remains incumbent on the apprehending officer(s) to inform detained persons of their rights, designated custody officers can double-check upon admission to the custody facility whether the detained person has actually been informed of all their rights, has understood and is able to exercise them. They may also provide the first opportunity for a detained person to make a formal complaint against apprehending officers, for example, regarding excessive use of force upon apprehension. The CPT has noted that, in certain states, every apprehended person has to be presented immediately to a designated, experienced, custody officer, before any other procedural steps can be taken. This custody officer is responsible for checking the psychological or physical integrity of the apprehended person, including whether they need to see a health-care professional, and for offering them the possibility to inform a third party of their choice of their situation and to contact a lawyer. Designated police officers are properly trained to pose the appropriate questions and to recognise and record indicative signs of a person in need of particular support and care. This is clearly good practice. 17. The CPT has generally found that basic material conditions, such as sanitary facilities, outdoor yards, meeting rooms for lawyers and medical examination rooms, as well as food, can be better provided in larger, specialised custody facilities than in small district police stations. It should be noted, however, that the existence of designated police custody facilities should not lead to the detention of persons remanded in custody in these facilities, as is still the case in several Council of Europe countries. 18. One example is the England and Wales Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) Code C – Code of Practice for the detention, treatment and questioning of persons by Police Officers (Home Office of the United Kingdom, revised, 26 July 2018). In some countries, the role and tasks of custody officers are specified in the national legislation (see, for instance, Section 212 of the Ukrainian Code of Criminal Procedure). Preventing police torture and other forms of ill-treatment ► Page 35