of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.”352 If prolonged incommunicado detention takes place in a secret or unknown place, this may amount to torture.353 The Committee against Torture commented in one case that it, “continues to be deeply concerned by the fact that incommunicado detention up to a maximum of five days has been maintained for specific categories of particularly serious offences. During this period, the detainee has no access to a lawyer or to a doctor of his or her choice nor is he or she able to notify his or her family. Although the state party explains that incommunicado detention does not involve the complete isolation of the detainee, who has access to an officially appointed lawyer and a forensic physician, the Committee considers that the incommunicado regime, regardless of the legal safeguards for its application, facilitates the commission of acts of torture and ill-treatment.354 Incommunicado detention also increases the risks of such forms of torture or ill-treatment as sexual abuse and harassment, virginity testing, forced abortion and forced miscarriage.355 Interrogation Interrogation techniques can also violate the prohibition on torture and inhuman and degrading treatment. Therefore, the legal system needs to provide fundamental safeguards against ill-treatment. Judges and prosecutors play a key role in safeguarding against such illtreatment. Key safeguards include:356 • the right of detainees to have the fact of their detention notified to a third party of their choice (family, friend or consulate); • the right of prompt access to a lawyer; • the right to challenge the legality of the detention (habeas corpus); and • the right to a medical examination by a doctor of the detainee’s choice. Proper custody records must also be kept. Most of these safeguards − and many others − are included in OSCE commitments.357 The safeguards have also been emphasized by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture.358 352 Resolution 1999/32, 26 April 1999, para 5, as reiterated in Resolution 2000/43 of 20 April 2000, para. 7. The same concept is stressed in many more UN official documents, cf. e.g. UN General Assembly Resolution 51/86 of 12 December 1996 and 54/156 of 17 December 1999. 353 The CAT has also focused on detention practices, including incommunicado detention, which may increase the risk of torture or ill-treatment: “The Committee expresses its concern that measures adopted or being adopted by the State party against terrorism and illegal armed groups could encourage the practice of torture. In this regard the Committee expresses its concern, in particular, at: […] (b) Constitutional reform bill No. 223/2003, which, if adopted, would seem to confer judicial powers on the armed forces and enable persons to be detained and questioned for up to 36 hours without being brought before a judge”, CAT, Concluding observations: Colombia, doc. CAT/C/CR/31/1, 4 February 2004, para. 8. See also CAT, Concluding observations: Morocco, doc. CAT/C/CR/31/2, 5 February 2004, para. 5. 354 Op. cit., note 342, CAT, Concluding observations: Spain, para. 10. 355 Op. cit., note 347, UN OHCHR, Combating Torture, p. 32, recalling the reports of the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nigel S. Rodley, especially docs. E/CN.4/1995/34, 12 January 1995 and A/55/290, 11 August 2000. 356 See in this regard also CoE, The CPT standards - “Substantive” sections of the CPT’s General Reports, doc. CPT/ Inf/E (2002) 1 - Rev. 2006, pp. 6-12, available at http://cpt.coe.int/en/docsstandards.htm. 357 See, for example, op. cit., note 5, 1991 Moscow Document, para. 23.1. 358 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Question of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Theo van Boven, doc. A/57/173, 2 July 2002, paras. 2-35; see also the following year’s report, doc. A/58/120, 3 July 2003, paras. 11-22. Countering Terrorism, Protecting Human Rights 127