CAT/C/ARM/CO/4 treatment and provide the results of the examination without delay to the appropriate authorities and make them available to the detained person concerned and his or her lawyer; (f) The right to be transferred from a police station to a detention facility within the prescribed three-day time limit; (g) The right to be promptly brought before a competent, independent and impartial court within a maximum of 48 hours. Audio and video recording of interrogations 11. The Committee notes that paragraph 2.3 of the chapter concerning torture of the financial agreement of the budget support programme on the protection of human rights in Armenia (European Union programme) requires the establishment of a legal framework to ensure audiovisual recordings during interrogations in 10 pilot police stations during 2017. However, the Committee is concerned that, under the current legislation, it is not mandatory for law enforcement agencies to use audio or video recording equipment during interrogations, and regrets that the draft Criminal Procedure Code does not remedy this omission. The Committee also notes that the implementation of the joint project proposal on the use of audiovisual recording during interrogations submitted to the Government by the Ministry of Justice is conditional upon the allocation of the proper funds (arts. 2, 12, 13, 15 and 16). 12. The Committee reiterates its previous recommendation (see CAT/C/ARM/CO/3, para. 11). The State party should adopt the legislative and other measures necessary and allocate the proper funds to ensure the mandatory video and audio recording of all criminal interrogations and equip all interrogation rooms in police stations and other places of deprivation of liberty with video and audio recording devices. It should also ensure that audiovisual footage is kept for a period sufficient for it to be used as evidence, including in court; that videotapes are reviewed to identify and investigate torture and other breaches of standards; and that tapes are made available to defendants and their counsels. Coerced confessions 13. The Committee welcomes the draft amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code stipulating clearly that any statement which is established to have been made under torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, as well as the criminalization under the Criminal Code of acts of torture aimed, inter alia, at extorting confessions. However, it remains concerned (see CAT/C/ARM/CO/3, para. 16) at allegations that, in practice, forced confessions are still used as evidence in courts. The Committee is further concerned at the lack of legal basis for the suspension of court proceedings pending an investigation of claims of coerced confession. It also regrets the lack of information on the number of cases in which the courts have ruled inadmissible evidence obtained through torture and the number of revisions of convictions based on such confessions owing to no such statistics being currently collected by the State party, although the delegation of the State party expressed a willingness to propose that such data be collected in the future (art. 15). 14. The Committee reiterates its previous recommendation (see CAT/C/ARM/CO/3, para. 16) that the State party should ensure that, in practice, statements obtained by torture are inadmissible as evidence in any proceedings, except when invoked against a person accused of torture. The State party should combat the practice of coerced confessions effectively; amend the relevant legislation to ensure that, both in law and in practice, in any case in which a person alleges that a confession was obtained through torture, the proceedings are suspended until the claim has been thoroughly 4