E/CN.4/2005/62/Add.2 page 35 the Form in his/her own handwriting, stating a phrase such as “I do not want a lawyer”, and to verify this situation with his/her signature. The Form has been translated into 11 languages and it is to be found in the units concerned. In addition, illiterate persons are orally informed of their rights and this is continuously monitored by superior officers. It can be concluded that due to these legislative measures, recommendation (a) of the former Special Rapporteur on torture has already been met by Turkey. This was confirmed in the report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) (CPT/Inf (2004) 16). In addition, to ensure that all detainees have access to a lawyer, Turkish authorities have taken further steps regarding the confidentiality, length and venue of the meetings between the detainees and their lawyers. Accordingly, the Ministry of the Interior issued a circular on 1 August 2003, and in line with the recommendations of the CPT, stipulated that at the end of a detainee-lawyer meeting, a record should be drawn up indicating the length of the meeting and whether its confidentiality had been observed, this record being signed by both the lawyer and the detained person. It is also stipulated in the above-mentioned circular that a suitable room should be allocated for meetings between detained persons and their lawyers in all law enforcement units dealing with custody procedures. The CPT delegation that visited Turkey in September 2003 observed the existence of such rooms in many of the establishments visited. 149. Recommendation (b) stated: The legislation should be amended to ensure that any extensions of police custody are ordered by a judge, before whom the detainee should be brought in person; such extensions should not exceed a total of four days from the moment of arrest or, in a genuine emergency, seven days, provided that the safeguards referred to in the previous recommendation are in place. 150. According to the information received from non-governmental sources, in practice, when extensions to the custodial period are applied for, the permission is sometimes granted by the judge by telephone and the detainee may not be brought before the judge in person. 151. The Government drew attention to information previously provided concerning periods of detention. (E/CN.4/2004/56/Add.3, para. 236). With the recent legal amendments, the initial police/gendarmerie custody period is shortened to 24 hours. In the case of collective offences (three or more persons), the custody period may be extended up to a maximum of four days, by written order of the public prosecutor. As the criteria required to enable the public prosecutor to extend the custody period in the case of collective offences are specified, there are no provisions preventing the detained person from being heard by the public prosecutor when the latter decides on whether these criteria have been met. Likewise, under article 136 of the CCP and article 19 of RACT, there are no provisions preventing the lawyer from being present at this interview either. In addition, even if the public prosecutor has given a decision to extend the custody period without hearing the detained person, the latter and the other persons referred to in the third paragraph of article 128 of the CCP (i.e. legal representative, first- or second-degree blood relations or spouse) may file an objection to this decision before the competent judge. The intention here is to make the public prosecutor’s decision subject to a judge’s supervision and thus to prevent possible arbitrary practices and ensure that individuals’ rights are respected. In particular, in cases where the custody period may be extended by decision of a prosecutor, there is a requirement that the person whose custody period is to be extended be heard by a judge. The respective rules on custody periods and their extension are strictly observed by the law enforcement officials, as confirmed in the report of the CPT (CPT/Inf (2004)16).