A/HRC/13/39/Add.5 104. In reality, the enjoyment of the right to a lawyer and legal assistance is strongly compromised. In many countries detainees are arrested, interrogated and indicted without having ever been able to access counsel. The access to a lawyer during the very early stages of arrest is hardly ever granted. Lawyers are mostly allowed to meet the detainee once the first interrogations have already been conducted and often after a confession or other incriminating evidence has been obtained. Even then, access to a lawyer remains a hypothetical option for most of the detainees since they lack the financial resources to pay for it. Given that persons of poorer social strata are overrepresented among detainees; the inability to effectively access legal aid affects the vast majority of persons deprived of their liberty. 105. The lack of legal counsel is in sharp contrast to the basic principles of equality before the law and fairness, resulting in a lack of equality of arms between the accused and the prosecutor. Detainees are often not aware of their rights, even when it comes to which treatment is actually permissible during interrogations. 106. In several States I visited, free legal aid was offered to detainees. While the authorities have to be commended for this measure, most of the legal aid schemes existed only on a procedural level and fell short of providing substantial protection of detainees’ rights. Very often free legal aid was de facto not free. Many detainees reported that Stateappointed lawyers requested the payment of further bribes since the remuneration paid by the State was below what a private client would pay. Unless the detainee paid a substantial amount to bridge this gap, the lawyer would not work seriously on the detainee’s case. 107. In other instances, detainees had severe doubts regarding the independence of their State appointed lawyers and whether their interests were indeed properly represented. Many appointed lawyers depended on the State salary, regardless of its modesty. In order to secure reappointments, lawyers were often reported to be caught in a conflict of interest between on the one hand, the protection of the interests of their clients and challenging the authorities, and, on the other, to foster amicable relationships with the authorities and compromising the detainee’s rights. Many detainees reported that their lawyer did not seriously defend their rights in order to ensure reappointment. Raising torture allegations and insisting on investigations into the crimes of those who, at least indirectly sign the pay check, is not an alternative for which many lawyers opt. 108. In order to rectify such a situation and ensure effective legal representation, it is necessary to institutionally separate contractual affairs related to the appointment of legal aid lawyers from those authorities who potentially violate detainees’ rights. State lawyers have to be competent, motivated, and sufficiently remunerated. Furthermore, it is worth considering, whether detainees should have a say in evaluating the professional performance of their legal representatives. (v) Complaints mechanism 109. Victims of torture must have a right to complain and to have their suffering heard so that their ordeal end, that those who are responsible can be held accountable and that adequate reparation can be provided. This most evident norm finds its expression in article 13 CAT. The right to complain is not limited to torture but also includes CIDT.62 110. In order for a victim to be able to voice his or her allegations and also be heard, the threshold for a complaint must be as low as possible, particularly in the context of detention. Accordingly, the CAT Committee established in its jurisprudence that a formal submission or express statement of the complainant is not required, and that bringing an 62 30 CAT articles 13 and 16(1).