be obtained and, if necessary, the absence of a signature explained. Further, the detainee’s lawyer should have access to such a custody record.”56 The Court’s standards on custody records have been introduced under the right to liberty and security: “… the absence of detention records, noting such matters as the date, time and location of detention and the name of the detainee as well as the reasons for the detention and the name of the person effecting it, must be seen as incompatible with the very purpose of Article 5 of the Convention (see Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 371, 18 June 2002).”57 Nonetheless, the importance of record-keeping in terms of securing avenues for the investigation of alleged ill-treatment cannot be underestimated.58 2.3.2 Prosecutors and judges should seek to provide for the communication of information and evidence relating to ill-treatment. They must take resolute action in response to information that ill-treatment may have been experienced by persons brought before them. They must conduct proceedings in such a manner as to ensure that the individual has a real opportunity to make an open statement about the manner in which he or she has been treated. Prosecutors and judges also have an important role to play in helping to secure avenues for the effective communication and investigation of allegations of ill-treatment. The CPT has observed that: “When persons detained by law enforcement agencies are brought before prosecutorial and judicial authorities, this provides a valuable opportunity for such persons to indicate whether or not they have been ill-treated. Further, even in the absence of an express complaint, these authorities will be in a position to take action in good time if there are other indicia (e.g. visible injuries; a person’s general appearance or demeanour) that ill-treatment might have occurred. 59 56. 2nd General Report on the CPT’s activities, CPT/Inf (92) 3, para. 41. See also CPT’s Report on the visit to Armenia carried out from 10l to 21 May 2010, CPT/Inf (2011) 24, para. 37. 57. Khadisov and Tsechoyev v. Russia, Judgment of 5 February 2009, application no. 21519/02, para. 148. See also Menesheva v. Russia, Judgment of 9 March 2006, application no. 59261/00, para. 87. 58. Barabanshchikov v. Russia, Judgment of 8 January 2009, application no. 36220/02, para. 44. 59. 14th General Report on the CPT’s activities, CPT/Inf (2004) 28, para. 28. See also CPT’s Report on the visit to Russia carried out from 27 April to 6 May 2011, CPT/Inf (2013) 1, para. 20; CPT’s Report on the visit to Armenia carried out from 10l to 21 May 2010, CPT/Inf (2011) 24, para. 27. Explanatory note ► Page 31