Notes cording of detention; information provided to detained persons on their rights and the actual exercise of those rights […]; compliance with rules governing the questioning of criminal suspects; and material conditions of detention. The findings of the above-mentioned authority should be forwarded not only to the police but also to another authority which is independent of the police” and Principle 29 of the Body of Principles: “(1) In order to supervise the strict observance of relevant laws and regulations, places of detention shall be visited regularly by qualified and experienced persons appointed by, and responsible to, a competent authority distinct from the authority directly in charge of the administration of the place of detention or imprisonment; (2) A detained or imprisoned person shall have the right to communicate freely and in full confidentiality with the persons who visit the places of detention or imprisonment in accordance with paragraph 1 of the present principle, subject to reasonable conditions to ensure security and good order in such places” and Principle 33 (1) according to which a detainee may complain about torture “when necessary, to appropriate authorities vested with reviewing or remedial powers.” 58. Principle 33 (4) of the Body of Principles provides that no-one should be prejudiced for making a complaint; Article 13 of the UN Convention Against Torture expressly requires States to protect complainants and witnesses from torture 59. Güleç v. Turkey (1999) 28 E.H.R.R. 121 ECHR at para. 79. 60. Aksoy v. Turkey (1997) 23 E.H.R.R. 553, para. 98; Ilhan v. Turkey, (2002) 34 E.H.R.R. 36,, para. 92 Tekin v. Turkey (2001) 31 E.H.R.R. 4, para 66. 61. CPT, 12th General Report, supra, para.42: “Persons in police custody should have a formally recognised right of access to a doctor. In other words, a doctor should always be called without delay if a person requests a medical examination; police officers should not seek to filter such requests. Further, the right of access to a doctor should include the right of a person in custody to be examined, if the person concerned so wishes, by a doctor of his/ her own choice (in addition to any medical 61 examination carried out by a doctor called by the police). All medical examinations of persons in police custody must be conducted out of the hearing of law enforcement officials and, unless the doctor concerned requests otherwise in a particular case, out of the sight of such officials. It is also important that persons who are released from police custody without being brought before a judge have the right to directly request a medical examination/certificate from a recognised doctor”; Principle 24 of the Body of Principles: “A proper medical examination shall be offered to a detained or imprisoned person as promptly as possible after his admission to the place of detention or imprisonment, and thereafter medical care and treatment shall be provided whenever necessary. The care and treatment shall be provided free of charge” and 26: “The fact that a detained or imprisoned person underwent a medical examination, the name of the physician and the results of such an examination shall be duly recorded. Access to such records shall be ensured. Modalities therefore shall be in accordance with relevant rules of domestic law.” See also Aydin v. Turkey (1998) 25 E.H.R.R. 251 ECHR on the right to an examination by medical professionals with appropriate and relevant training and expertise, at para. 107; Akkoç v. Turkey (2002) 34 E.H.R.R. 51 ECHR, para. 118’; Ogur v. Turkey (2001) 31 E.H.R.R. 40, paras.89-90. 62. See Henri Parot v. Spain, CAT, Communication No. 6/1990, CAT/C/14/D/6/1990, para 10.4 and Encarnacion Blanco Abad v. Spain, CAT, Communication 56/1996 at para 8.6. See also, Chris Ingelse, The UN Committee against Torture: An Assessment, The Hague/London/Boston: Kluwer Law International, 2001, at p. 355. 63. Eduardo Bleier v. Uruguay, HRC Communication No. R.7/30, U.N. Doc. Supp. No. 40 (A/37/40) at 130 (1982). 64. Assenov & Others v. Bulgaria, (24760/94) [1998] ECHR 98 (28 October 1998) and Veznedaroglu v. Turkey. 32357/96) [2000] ECHR 166 (11 April 2000). 65. Maritza Urrutia Case, Judgment of 27 November 2003, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., (Ser. C) No. 103 (2003), para. 110; See also, Velasquez Rodriguez v. Honduras, Judgment of 29 July 1988, Inter-Am Ct. H.R. (Ser. C) No.