CAT/C/CHN/CO/5 the Committee considers that this remedy does not offer detainees an option to be heard before an independent and impartial authority and against all grounds of refusal. The Committee notes with concern consistent reports indicating that public security officials constantly refuse lawyers’ access to suspects and notification to their relatives on the grounds that the case concerns State secrets, even when the detained person is not charged with State security crimes (art. 2). 13. The Committee urges the State party to adopt effective measures to ensure, in law and in practice, that detainees are afforded all legal safeguards from the very outset of the detention, including the safeguards mentioned in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the Committee’s general comment No. 2. In particular, the State party should: (a) Amend its legislation and grant all detainees the right to have access to a lawyer from the very outset of deprivation of liberty, including during the initial interrogation by the police, irrespective of the charge brought against them; (b) Ensure in practice that detainees are able to communicate with a lawyer in full confidentiality; (c) Guarantee that the relatives or other persons of the detainee’s choice are notified of the facts, the reasons and the place of detention within the 24 hours specified in the law; (d) Repeal the provisions in the Criminal Procedure Law that allow restrictions to the right to counsel and to notifying relatives in cases of “endangering State security”, “terrorism”, serious “bribery” or cases involving “State secrets”; (e) Ensure that detainees, their legal representatives and relatives can challenge any unlawful restriction to have access to their clients or to notify the relatives before a judge; (f) Regularly monitor compliance with the legal safeguards by all public officials and ensure that those who do not comply with those safeguards are duly disciplined. Residential surveillance at a designated location 14. The Committee expresses grave concern over the amended articles of the Criminal Procedure Law permitting a person under residential surveillance to be placed “at a designated location” for up to six months, in cases involving crimes of “endangering State security”, “terrorism” or serious “bribery”, and when confinement in their home may impede the investigation. The Committee notes with concern that, although families must be notified within 24 hours of the decision, the Law does not indicate that they must be told the reason or the place of detention, which could be any unregulated and unmonitored facility. The Committee is of the view that these provisions, together with the possibility of refusing access to a lawyer for these types of crimes, may amount to incommunicado detention in secret places, putting detainees at a high risk of torture or ill-treatment (art. 2). 15. The State party should repeal, as a matter of urgency, the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law that allow suspects to be held de facto incommunicado, at a designated location, while under residential surveillance. In the meantime, the State party must ensure that procuratorates promptly review all the decisions on residential surveillance taken by public security officers, and ensure that detainees who are designated for potential prosecution are charged and tried as soon as possible and those who are not to be charged or tried are immediately released. If detention is justified, detainees should be formally accounted for and held in officially recognized places of detention. Officials responsible for abuses of detainees should be held criminally accountable. 4