64 (33.2%) of the detainees interviewed said that their lawyers had not participated in the investigation or that they had no lawyers. According to the most of the detainees, they had last seen their attorneys in court, when judges decided on a measure of restraint. Example: from the interview with a convicted person: “I was arrested at home. Then I spent three days at the field investigators’ room. I did not see an attorney during the investigation, but I saw him only in court. When the court authorized to arrest me, no attorney was there.”207 Example: While being interviewed, a detainee could not recall the name of his attorney. It turned out that a TDF member knows the attorney’s name. It was discovered later on that this attorney was engaged in protecting interests of two other detainees in the same TDF.208 Diagram 26. Participation of attorney in investigation In 121 (62.7%) cases, the attorney was appointed by the investigator; in 53 (27.5%) cases – invited by family; and in 19 (9.8%) cases the respondents said they did not know who had appointed a lawyer whom they had never seen. Diagram 27. Basis for participation of attorney. Interrogation in the absence of the attorney is one of the most serious violations of the right to defense. 89 (46.1%) of the respondents asserted they had been interrogated without an attorney participating. Example: from the interview with a detainee: “I was interrogated by members of the criminal investigation department at night, without the investigator or attorney being present.”209 Diagram 28. Participation of attorney in the stage of interrogation. When asked about the quality of legal aid, 69 (53.5%) of the respondents said they were not satisfied with the attorney’s performance; 44 (34.1%) of the detainees were found to be content with their attorneys. The rest 16 (12.4%) could not answer the question. 207 208 209 Monitoring Report No.2/5-8-9/З/1. Monitoring Report No.1/6-7/0/1. Monitoring Report No.3/5/З/1.2. 72