by authorities with powers of administrative apprehension or apprehension pursuant to an order of law enforcement agencies, or apprehension of persons by pre-trial investigation agencies. Moreover, Article 374 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine establishes criminal responsibility for violating the right to defense (failure to provide access to a defense attorney in a timely manner, and any other serious violation of the right of a suspected, accused or defendant to defense, if committed by an inquiring officer, investigator, prosecutor or judge). Nevertheless, despite existence of imperative norms on the right to defense in Ukraine, and criminal responsibility for violation thereof, as well as numerous recommendations for prevention of violations of the right to defense provided by the Human Rights Commissioner to the leadership of the MIA and the Office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine during previous year, multiple violations of the right to defense were regularly recorded in 2014, including the following:  Competent officials who conduct apprehension, despite legal requirements, fail to inform or inform following a long period (from several hours) the body(institution) authorized by the law to provide free legal aid;  Officers on duty of district, city and line departments fail to verify whether the Center for free legal aid was notified on apprehension of the person brought into custody, as well as fail to notify the Centers upon receiving such information (this duty is established by paragraph 6.6.2 of the Instruction adopted by the MIA order #181 dated 28 April 2009);  Apprehended persons do not receive primary legal aid (no advise on the right to defense counsel, medical assistance, the right to provide explanations or testimony or stay silent with regard to suspicion etc.);  The right of suspects to confidential meeting with an attorney is not observed;  There are obstructions of attorneys’ access to apprehended persons;  Provision of advice on choosing a particular attorney (in violation of Article 48§1 of the CPC);  Failure to ensure proper records of notifications, in particular registry of notifications of free legal aid centers at every duty station of the bodies of internal affairs etc.;  Subjects obliged to provide information violate requirements of paragraph 10 of the Procedure adopted by the CMU resolution #1361 dated 28.12.2011 and fail to provide information on number of apprehension and cases where attorneys fail to arrive or arrive later than the term established by the Procedure. Typical violations of the right to defense recorded in 2014: On 30 May 2014, during monitoring visit Svyatoshyn district directorate of the Main MIA Directorate in Kyiv, four apprehended persons were found in the premises for apprehended persons and persons taken into custody. Interviews and verification of 56