CAT/C/JOR/CO/2 Fundamental legal safeguards 12. The Committee expresses its serious concern at the State party’s failure in practice to afford all detainees, including detainees held in facilities of the General Intelligence Directorate and the Public Security Department, all fundamental legal safeguards from the very outset of their detention. Such safeguards comprise the right to have prompt access to a lawyer and an independent medical examination, to notify a relative, and to be informed of their rights at the time of detention, including about the charges laid against them, as well as to appear before a judge within a time limit in accordance with international standards. The Committee is particularly concerned that an arrested person does not have the right to a lawyer from the moment of arrest, and especially during the initial stage between arrest and being presented to the prosecutor, and that articles 63, paragraph 2, and 64 of the Code of Criminal Procedure allow prosecutors exceptionally to interrogate detainees without lawyers in “cases of urgency”. The Committee is further concerned that meetings between lawyers and clients reportedly take place in the presence of numerous other persons and attorneys (arts. 2, 11 and 12). The State party should promptly implement effective measures to ensure that all detainees are afforded, in practice, all fundamental legal safeguards from the very outset of their detention. These include, in particular, the right to have prompt access to a lawyer and an independent medical examination, to notify a relative, and to be informed of their rights at the time of detention, including about the charges laid against them, as well as to appear expeditiously before a judge. The State party should also take effective measures to ensure that “lawyers’ rooms” provide for the confidentiality of client-lawyer consultations. Administrative detention 13. According to the State party’s report (para. 45), the Government has instructed administrative court judges to end the practice of administrative detention and a large number of persons have been released. However, the Committee expresses its grave concern at the continued practice of administrative detention (according to the replies to the lists of issues, more than 20,000 persons were held in such detention in 2006 and this was reduced to approximately 16,000). The Committee is particularly concerned that the Crime Prevention Act of 1954 provides for administrative governors affiliated with the Ministry of Interior to detain any person suspected of perpetrating a crime or any person considered a threat to the community for a period of one year, renewable indefinitely. The Committee is also concerned that the Code of Criminal Procedures currently allows arrest and detention without explicit legal grounds, as well as arrest without objective supportive grounds (arts. 2, 11 and 16). Since administrative detention puts detainees beyond judicial control and hence at risk of measures in contravention of the Convention, the Committee urges the State party to take all appropriate measures to abolish the practice of administrative detention. The State party should amend the domestic laws cited above to bring them into conformity with international human rights standards and the State party’s obligations under the Convention. Special court system 14. The Committee expresses its grave concern at the special court system within the security services, including the State Security Court, the Special Police Court and the Military Tribunal of the General Intelligence Directorate, which have reportedly shielded military and security personnel alleged to be responsible for human rights violations from legal accountability. The Committee is concerned that transparency, independence and 5