CAT/OP/UKR/3 which means that persons could be held and interrogated for prolonged periods without enjoying their right to legal advice. 48. As mentioned above, the Subcommittee welcomes the creation and continued development of a State-sponsored legal aid system. It is concerned, however, that in many cases lawyers have limited interaction with their clients, whom they often meet for the first time during the pretrial period or even at the court hearings, where they are unable to properly engage with detainees on a defence strategy. This is particularly true for legal aid lawyers provided by the State party, who detainees often consider to be underqualified or not impartial, improperly supporting the work of the investigators and pressuring them to confess. 49. Furthermore, the Subcommittee is concerned that, in some institutions, consultations between lawyers and detainees take place in investigation rooms that are under electronic surveillance. In other cases, written communication between lawyers and detainees is restricted, which means that detainees may only communicate confidentially during face-toface meetings. 50. The Subcommittee recommends that the State party ensure that all detainees have access to legal counsel from the outset of their deprivation of liberty and throughout the detention period. 51. The Subcommittee also recommends that the State party ensure that legal advice provided through its legal aid system is prompt, professional and given in the interests of the detainee, not of the detaining authorities. Appropriate training should be provided by independent professional bodies to lawyers providing legal aid. The Subcommittee further recommends that such training be extended to include counsel representing detainees accused of crimes in connection with the armed conflict in eastern Ukraine. The Subcommittee reiterates the recommendation made in paragraph 42 above. 52. The State party is urged to guarantee the absolute confidentiality of communications between lawyers and their clients. Medical care and examination 53. Through its analysis of medical registers at all institutions and its interviews with detainees, the Subcommittee notes that detained individuals undergo a routine medical examination, including screening for HIV and tuberculosis, at the start of their deprivation of liberty. The Subcommittee has observed, however, that, despite this, some detainees’ medical records appear repetitive or scant, which suggests that such examinations are superficial in nature. In a number of SIZOs, in particular, detainees are simply asked if they have any medical complaints instead of being examined by a health practitioner. Where injuries are recorded, there is no indication of how the injuries were sustained. Moreover, medical examinations are often performed in the presence of other officials, such as members of the convoy or guards on duty, which infringes upon confidentiality and may discourage a discussion of injuries resulting from torture and ill-treatment. The Subcommittee has also noted that medical examinations have been conducted through cell bars or within metal “cages” in cells. 54. The Subcommittee is concerned that, as with other fundamental safeguards, medical examinations do not appear to be guaranteed to those who, despite being deprived of liberty, are not held in places recognized by the State party as official places of detention. 55. The Subcommittee has also observed that medical personnel are generally unfamiliar with the Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the Istanbul Protocol). While the Subcommittee is encouraged to hear that medical professionals in SIZOs, ITTs and penitentiaries feel they are appropriately supported and can perform their work autonomously, the Subcommittee is concerned that medical professionals in places of detention do not consider it their duty to question whether injuries observed may be the result of torture and ill-treatment. The Subcommittee further notes that medical professionals in criminal justice institutions consider the head of the facility as their immediate supervisor. This supervisory chain may result in conflicts of interests that could deter health professionals from reporting injuries evidencing torture or ill-treatment. 10