CAT/C/LKA/CO/5 amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure Act proposed in 2016 guarantee the right to meet with a lawyer only after the detainee’s statement is taken by the police. While noting that the Government is reconsidering this proposal, the Committee stresses that such a rule would not eliminate the risk of detainees being tortured during police interrogations. It is also concerned about information that habeas corpus applications are still an ineffective remedy to challenge the lawfulness of detention because of the excessive delays in the process of inquiry before the magistrate’s courts (art. 2). 28. The State party should make the necessary legislative amendments to the draft Code of Criminal Procedure Act in order to ensure, in law and in practice, that all detainees are afforded all fundamental legal safeguards from the outset of the deprivation of liberty, including the safeguards mentioned in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the Committee’s general comment No. 2. In particular, the State party should guarantee that the persons arrested and detained have the right: (a) To prompt access to a lawyer, especially during police interrogations, including unrestricted access to an ex officio lawyer; (b) To notify a relative or other person of the detainee’s choice of the reasons for and place of detention; (c) To challenge, any time during the detention, the legality or necessity of the detention before a magistrate who can order the detainee’s immediate release, and to receive a decision without delay. The State party should increase its efforts to ensure that the adjudication of habeas corpus proceedings is as expeditious as possible. The State party should regularly verify that law enforcement officials respect legal safeguards, and it should apply Crimes Circular No. 02/2013 and penalize any failure on the officials’ part to do so. Medical examinations 29. While noting the information provided in the State party’s report that arrested persons are routinely brought for a medico-legal examination before being produced before a magistrate and prior to their release, the Committee regrets the lack of information on the number of investigations initiated on the basis of medico-legal reports that showed evidence of ill-treatment. The Committee is also concerned that the person examined can only obtain a copy of the medico-legal report once it is sent to the court and becomes a public document, and that its publication threatens the confidentiality of the medical information and exposes victims to reprisals. As regards requests for medico-legal examinations in prisons, the Committee expresses concern at information that prison doctors need to request permission from the prison management, which may create a conflict of duty for prison doctors and expose them to pressure to supress evidence (art. 2). 30. The Committee calls on the State party to ensure that: (a) A medical examination is performed promptly at the beginning of the deprivation of liberty by independent doctors, including doctors of the detainee’s own choosing, who have been trained in the use of the Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the Istanbul Protocol); (b) The medico-legal report is made directly available to the detainee or the detainee’s counsel on request; (c) All examinations are performed out of earshot and sight of police officers and prison staff; 9