Example: Attorney: “They allow visits with delay under various pretexts or ask to get permission from the management”.215 Example: Attorney: “IT is extremely hard to get an opportunity to visit a defendant in a TDF who was subjected to torture. One has to run back and forth, explain and demand”.216 Virtually all attorneys interviewed reported difficulties in getting permission for a visit. The KR Law on the Procedure of the Detention as of 19 October 2011 No.180 was amended to state that for a defense lawyer to be allowed to visit his defendant, he shall have a warrant-instruction and a written confirmation issued by an investigator, a prosecutor or court of the fact that he participates in the criminal case. Adoption of these amendments, which made attorneys dependent on investigators and prosecutors again, raises doubts in the effectiveness of fundamental principles of a criminal process: trial based on quality of parties, and ensuring the right of a suspected, accused and untried person to defense. Representatives of investigation bodies assure that this new rule of the Law does not require an attorney to get permission from an investigator to visit his defendant as it was before. However, compliance with this formality takes an attorney much time becoming a real obstacle for visiting his defendant when urgently needed. Example: Attorney: “Sometimes it takes hours to get a signature of a head of a law enforcement agency and an investigator”.217 Example: Attorney: “It takes a lot of time to get signatures of the head of the law enforcement management and the investigator”.218 b. The right of the attorney to communicate with his defendant with confidentiality Most of the attorneys interviewed shared that they communicated with their defendants with confidentiality. Two of the respondents said that it is not always possible to communicate with their defendants in private, especially if they are torture victims. Example: Attorney: “If a defendant was beaten, confidentiality is not always ensured. Sometimes criminal investigation department members preclude from communicating with a defendant”.219 Example: Attorney: “It is not always possible to communicate with a defendant in private. But after I rebuke, law enforcement members leave us”.220 c. Denial of institution of criminal proceedings and ineffective investigation of criminal cases associated with torture Attorneys are concerned about the reluctance of prosecutor’s offices to institute criminal proceedings under cases of torture. It often happens that, even if there are signs of torture on a victim’s body, prosecutor’s office members resolve to deny institution of criminal proceedings. Example: Attorney: “I submitted a complaint to the prosecutor’s office resulting in a formal inspection. However, institution of criminal proceedings was denied”.221 215 Monitoring Report No. А/43/14. Monitoring Report No. А/25/15. 217 Monitoring Report No. А/25/7. 218 Monitoring Report No.А/25/3. 219 Monitoring Report No. А/24/6. 220 Monitoring Report No. А/41/11. 221 Monitoring Report No. А/23/4. 216 74