86 Human Rights in Counter-Terrorism Investigations 3.4.2 The Right to Notify Appropriate Persons of One’s Choice of One’s Arrest, Detention, Imprisonment and Whereabouts This safeguard is perhaps the most important and effective in ensuring that knowledge that someone has been detained becomes public. It is thus able to act as a particularly effective deterrent to ill-treatment and other violations. The right provides that, from the very outset of their custody, terrorism suspects can have their family or any other person of their choosing notified about their arrest. Importantly, this includes the notification of their place of detention. A good practice to comply with this requirement is to allow repeat notification whenever a detainee is transferred from one police facility to another.93 This right does not entitle the detainees themselves to speak to the person they nominate, although this may be allowed at the discretion of the police. However, it requires that the police must ensure that the notification is made with the shortest possible delay.94 In exceptional cases, granting this right immediately might hamper police investigations. It could potentially result in alerting potential accomplices that the police have uncovered a plot, thus allowing them to escape or destroy evidence. It is, therefore, logical that there should be some caveat and that a reasonable period of delay is allowed in exceptional circumstances. Such delay should, however, be clearly defined in law, applied in a restrictive manner, proportionate and strictly limited in time.95 Such exceptions should also be based on clear procedures and an independent decision-making process. This might entail that any delay in notification of custody is recorded in writing, including the reasons for the delay, and require the approval of a senior police officer 93 94 95 For example, in the United Kingdom; as per the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Section 56(8). See for example, “Report on the visit of the Subcommittee on prevention of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment to Sweden”, 10 September 2008, CAT/OP/SWE/1, para. 53, <http://www.un.org/Docs/journal/asp/ws.asp?m=CAT/OP/ SWE/1>; and “Report to the Bulgarian Government on the visit to Bulgaria carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 26 March to 7 April 1995”, European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, 25 September 1995, CPT/Inf (97)1, para. 83, <http://www.cpt.coe. int/documents/bgr/1997–01-inf-eng-1.pdf>. Ibid; “Report on the visit of the Subcommittee on prevention of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment to Sweden”, para. 53; and “Report to the Government of the Netherlands on the visit to the Netherlands carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 10 to 21 October 2011”, European Committee for the Prevention of Torture 9 August 2012, CPT/Inf (2012) 21, para. 15, <http://www.cpt. coe.int/documents/nld/2012–21-inf-eng.pdf>.