60 A practical guide to the Istanbul Protocol – for lawyers take undue advantage of the situation of a detained or imprisoned person for the purpose of compelling him to confess, to incriminate himself otherwise or to testify against any other person.” 49. See in particular the decision of the Human Rights Committee in Singarasa v. Sri Lanka, UN Doc. CCPR/C/81/D/1033/2001, 23 August 2004. See for a recent example of national jurisprudence the judgment of the UK House of Lords in A(FC) and others (FC) (Appelants) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondents), House of Lords, [2004] UKHL 56, on appeal from: [2002] EWCA Civ 1502. 50. UN Document A/56/156, 3 July 2001, para. 39 (j). 51. See for example Article 12 of the UN Convention against Torture stating that national authorities are obliged to proceed to an investigation ex officio, wherever there are reasonable grounds to believe that acts of torture have been committed and whatever the origin of the suspicion. 52. Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee: Bolivia, UN Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.74, 1 May 1997, para. 28; Principle 13 of the Body of Principles and Rule 35 of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. According to the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, “Rights for persons deprived of their liberty will be of little value if the persons concerned are unaware of their existence. Consequently, it is imperative that persons taken into police custody are expressly informed of their rights without delay and in a language which they understand. In order to ensure that this is done, a form setting out those rights in a straightforward manner should be systematically given to persons detained by the police at the very outset of their custody. Further, the persons concerned should be asked to sign a statement attesting that they have been informed of their rights.” 12th General Report, supra, para.44. 53. CPT, 12th General Report, supra, para.40: “As from the outset of its activities, the CPT has advocated a trinity of rights for persons detained by the police: the rights of access to a lawyer and 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.” Principles 15-19 of the Body of Principles. 54. Principle 16 (2) of the Body of Principles; Rule 38 of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. The International Court of Justice has in the LaGrand Case (Germany v United States of America), ICJ Reports 2001, para.77 and the Case Concerning Avena and other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), Judgment of 31 March 2004, recognised that Article 36 (1) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations creates individual rights for the national concerned. 55. See CPT, Report to the Government of Cyprus on the visit to Cyprus carried out by the European Committee on the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment from 22-30 May 2000, CPT/Inf (2003) 1, para.41: “The right for prisoners to have confidential access to appropriate authorities is an important additional safeguard against ill-treatment. In this respect, the CPT’s delegation noted that the prison authorities have installed locked boxes through which inmates may have direct access to the Director of Nicosia Central Prisons and to the Prison Board. This is a welcome development, which should be extended to allow prisoners direct access to bodies which are entirely independent of the prison system.” See also Principle 33 (3) of the Body of Principles: “Confidentiality concerning the request or complaint shall be maintained if so requested by the complainant.” 56. Report of the Special Rapporteur, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2004/56, 23 December 2003, para. 39 and Principles 11 (1), 32 (1) and 37 of the Body of Principles. 57. CPT, 12th General Report, supra, para. 50: “[…]the inspection of police establishments by an independent authority can make an important contribution towards the prevention of ill-treatment of persons held by the police and, more generally, help to ensure satisfactory conditions of detention. To be fully effective, visits by such authorities should be both regular and unannounced, and the authority concerned should be empowered to interview detained persons in private. Further, it should examine all issues related to the treatment of persons in custody: the re-