As for the CPT, the fundamental safeguards described above are also key: “The CPT attaches particular importance to three rights for persons detained by the police: the right of the person concerned to have the fact of his detention notified to a third party of his choice (family member, friend, consulate), the right of access to a lawyer, and the right to request a medical examination by a doctor of his choice (in addition to any medical examination carried out by a doctor called by the police authorities).”40 2.2.2 These rights should apply from the very outset of deprivation of liberty. Legitimate interests of the police investigation may exceptionally require that a notification of the detention to a third party or the detainee’s access to the lawyer of his choice are delayed for a limited period. These restrictions should be clearly defined and accompanied by further appropriate guarantees. The CPT has underlined these “three rights” as pre-requisites to compliance with the guarantees against ill-treatment, and emphasised that they “should apply as from the very outset of deprivation of liberty, regardless of how it may be described under the legal system concerned (apprehension, arrest, etc.).”41 The Court mirrors this approach and will often not tolerate even short delays.42 Equally, however, the CPT stresses that the three rights should be secured without unduly impeding the police in the proper exercise of their duties: “The CPT recognises that in order to protect the legitimate interests of the police investigation, it may exceptionally be necessary to delay for a certain period a detained person’s access to a lawyer of his choice. However, this should not result in the right of access to a lawyer being totally denied during the period in question. In such cases, access to another independent lawyer should be arranged.”43 “[S]uch exceptions should be clearly defined and strictly limited in time, and resort to them should be accompanied by appropriate safeguards (e.g. any delay in notification of custody to be recorded in writing with the reasons therefore, and to require the approval of a senior police officer unconnected with the case or a prosecutor).”44 40. This right has subsequently been reformulated as the right of access to a doctor, including the right to be examined, if the person detained so wishes, by a doctor of his own choice (in addition to any medical examination carried out by a doctor called by the police authorities), 2nd General Report on the CPT’s activities, CPT/Inf (92) 3, para. 36. 41. Ibid. 42. Yüksel v. Turkey, Judgment of 20 July 2004, application no. 40154/98, para. 27. 43. 12th General Report on the CPT’s activities, CPT/Inf (2002) 15, para. 41. 44. Ibid, para 43. Explanatory note ► Page 27