CAT/OP/CHE/CSPRO/1 complying with the principle of expeditiousness (Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 5). These time limits, which vary between 7 and 30 years depending on the seriousness of the offence, were in fact extended during the revision of the general section of the Criminal Code, and they cease to accrue once the first-instance judgment has been handed down (Criminal Code, art. 97). In the context of crimes against humanity, offences of torture cannot be time-barred (Criminal Code, art. 101). 34. In order to highlight the extent to which Switzerland takes a zero-tolerance approach to acts of torture, it should be noted that the use of coercion, force, threats, promises, deception and other methods that may compromise a person’s ability to think or decide freely are prohibited when taking evidence (Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 140). Any evidence obtained using such methods is completely inadmissible (Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 141 (1)). 35. In the light of these factors, the Subcommittee’s assertion that “the only acts of torture punishable ... are those committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population” is untrue. In Switzerland, all acts that may amount to torture are punished, regardless of the context in which they are committed. Switzerland thus fulfils its commitments under articles 1 and 4 of the Convention, which do not require the creation of a criminal law provision specifically prohibiting torture. B. Fundamental safeguards 36. Paragraph 45: The Subcommittee invites the State party to ensure that all persons who are deprived of their liberty have the benefit from the very outset of the deprivation of liberty – that is, from the time that they are deprived of freedom of movement by the police – of all the fundamental legal safeguards, namely, the right of access to a lawyer, the right to contact family members and the right to an independent medical examination by a doctor of their choice. 37. Contrary to the Subcommittee’s assertion, the legal system provides for detained persons to have access to legal safeguards not from the start of their interrogation but from the time of their custodial arrest (Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 219). Indeed, as soon as a person is suspected of an offence, the police must immediately inform the suspect of his or her right to legal counsel (Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 219 (1), read in conjunction with art. 158). The Code of Criminal Procedure makes no reference to a three-hour period during which the suspect has no right to legal counsel.5 In fact, Swiss legislation goes beyond the principle developed by the European Court of Human Rights that “access to a lawyer should be provided, as a rule, from the first police interview of a suspect”.6 If, however, the person arrested does not speak an official language, it is possible that he or she may not have immediate access to legal safeguards, as it will be necessary to provide translated information or an interpreter. 38. Similarly, for reasons of safety, legislation guarantees persons under custodial arrest or in pretrial detention the right immediately to inform their next of kin, their employer or the relevant embassy or consulate of their arrest (Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 214). 39. With regard to medical examinations, the Swiss legal system guarantees all persons arrested by the police the right to be examined by an independent doctor of their choice immediately following their arrest and whenever they so request, subject to the availability of the chosen doctor and as long as there is no risk of collusion.7 40. The right to information is of key importance in Switzerland. Informing suspects of their rights goes beyond mere prescriptive formality and is essential to ensuring the validity of actions and decisions taken. Thus, pursuant to article 158 (2) of the Code of Criminal 5 6 7 GE.21-03864 Article 219 (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure merely states that persons under arrest may only be held for more than three hours if a corresponding order is given by a police officer authorized to do so by the Confederation or the canton. European Court of Human Rights, Salduz v. Turkey, Judgment, 27 November 2008, para. 55. Feuille fédérale (Official Gazette) 2006 1371. 7