E/CN.4/2003/68/Add.2 page 14 B. Lack of respect for existing legal safeguards 43. The Special Rapporteur has received information according to which lawyers have frequently been barred from taking part in the criminal investigation process or from court trials. Investigators are said to have discretionary powers in deciding if and when a suspect will have access to a lawyer. Very few cases have been reported to the Special Rapporteur in which access to a lawyer was granted within 10 days after deprivation of liberty. It is also reported that privately hired lawyers are sometimes replaced by State-appointed defence lawyers, even against the wishes of their clients. A large number of these lawyers, who are commonly referred to as “pocket lawyers”, are said to work hand in hand with investigators. It is alleged that some have witnessed or participated in the illegal use of force during interrogation and did not intervene, or, later in court, denied allegations of torture made by defendants. 44. Relatives are allegedly told by heads of places of pre-trial detention that they will be granted access to detainees only upon formal approval by the investigator in the case. It is not clear whether the law provides for access by relatives to pre-trial detainees or whether it is left entirely to the discretion of the investigator. The Special Rapporteur believes that prompt and confidential access to any person deprived of liberty is an important guarantee against treatment falling within his mandate. 45. With respect to access to medical doctors, it is alleged that private doctors are systematically refused access to detainees in pre-trial detention. Only doctors called on the emergency line are believed not to have been denied access by investigators to a detainee in urgent need. It is also reported that detainees are only medically checked upon transfer to a SIZO by doctors who are under the jurisdiction of the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs in charge of the execution of sentences (GUIN). They are said not to have received any forensic training. It must also be noted that only medical reports requested by investigators and procurators are said to have legal standing in court. Forensic experts from the Ministry of Health are only called upon in cases of death in custody. In that respect, the Special Rapporteur regrets not to have met any representatives from the Forensic Institute, as requested. 46. With respect to the trial process, the lack of statutory powers and lack of independence of judges are alleged to make any defence and any torture complaint meaningless. Independent lawyers are said to be subjected to various forms of pressure and harassment with a view to making them renounce active participation in the defence of their clients. Lawyers have reportedly been threatened by judges, including in the courtroom, and visited and assaulted by law enforcement personnel, in particular after their involvement in so-called security cases. Thus, it is widely believed by defendants and the population at large that lawyers are extremely reluctant to bring torture allegations to the attention of a magistrate during trial. Procurators are believed to be all-powerful in the criminal process and to rely almost exclusively on confessions. They control MVD and SNB investigators or carry out investigations themselves, bring charges and authorize detention, monitor respect for the CPC and the conditions of detention, and prosecute in court. During trial, their indictment is said to be the - often only - basis of the conviction. The Minister of Justice stressed that the principle of equality of arms between the