E/CN.4/2003/68/Add.2 page 7 14. However, it must be noted that in accordance with article 48 CPC, “[a] suspect/accused has the right … to demand an interrogation not later than 24 hours after her/his detention”. Similarly, article 110 CPC provides that “… the suspect has to be interrogated immediately or not later than 24 hours after the detention”. Again, in these two provisions, the word “detention” can be interpreted in two different ways. It was, however, widely believed that it would here mean apprehension. This is supported by the following explanation given by the General Procurator to the Special Rapporteur: a suspect must be first interrogated within 24 hours after her/his apprehension in order to leave 48 hours to procurators to decide, upon first evidence gathered by the investigator, whether to formally bring charges in the case concerned. In accordance with article 111 CPC, after this first interrogation session, which must therefore occur within 24 hours of deprivation of liberty, the investigator must “ensure the participation of a legal counsel in the interrogation”. This would then mean that a suspect has the right to a defender after this first interrogation session during which s/he “is informed that s/he is suspected of a crime” (art. 48), i.e. within 24 hours after deprivation of liberty. 15. The Special Rapporteur believes that the crucial question of the timing of access to a defender/legal counsel/lawyer in the early stage of the criminal process is widely unknown or ignored as various interpretations may be given to the relevant CPC provisions. From discussions with officials and legal practitioners, it was unclear whether a person deprived of liberty has the right of access to a lawyer immediately after deprivation of liberty (apprehension), within 24 hours, or only from the moment s/he is formally charged, i.e. 3 or up to 10 days after apprehension. While the Minister of Justice stressed that lawyers can visit their clients from the moment of apprehension and fully participate in all phases of the investigation, legal practitioners were divided between the two other alternatives, i.e. within 24 hours, or from the formal bringing of charges. 16. Furthermore, it must be stressed, the head of the IVS of the MVD in Tashkent confirmed that the investigator in a case is responsible for informing the family and lawyers of the detainees of their detention. He acknowledged that meetings with lawyers or family members require in any case the prior explicit consent of the investigator, who was said to have complete discretionary powers in that matter. 17. Finally, the Special Rapporteur notes with concern that during the first interrogation session provided for by article 48 CPC (within the initial 24 hours), the suspect may be asked to write at least an “explanation letter”, if not a confession - possibly self-incriminating - that may then be used as evidence in court. In accordance with the provisions referred to above, at this stage, the law does not provide for the mandatory presence of a lawyer. The Special Rapporteur was informed of the practice according to which witnesses, who according to the law do not have access to legal counsel, were reportedly initially brought to the police, made to confess, and were subsequently turned into “suspects”. C. Pre-trial detention 1. Pre-trial investigation 18. After the initial detention in temporary isolation of 3 or up to 10 days, a person must be either released, or charged and then “placed in custody” (zakluchen pod straju) pending trial,