CAT/C/51/D/376/2009 statements extracted under torture as evidence. This does nothing to discourage the investigative police — not to mention the Intelligence and Security Department, which is not accountable to the judicial branch — from using illegal methods to obtain statements for later use in criminal trials against detained persons or third parties. Furthermore, the State party operates a number of secret detention centres,5 which opens the door to all kinds of abuse6 and runs contrary to the measures identified by the Committee as those required of States parties in order to prevent the torture and ill-treatment of persons deprived of their liberty, such as maintaining an official register of prisoners.7 Pursuant to article 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention, the State party must also respect the right of persons deprived of their liberty to promptly receive independent legal and medical assistance, to contact relatives, to have access to legal and other remedies that ensure the prompt examination of their complaint, to defend their rights and to contest the legality of their detention or treatment.8 The complainant points out that Algerian legislation provides for a period of police custody of up to 12 days, but makes no provision for contact with the outside world, including with relatives, a lawyer or an independent doctor. This long period of incommunicado detention exposes persons held in custody to an increased risk of torture and ill-treatment. Moreover, in such circumstances, they are physically unable to assert their rights through judicial proceedings. 3.4 The complainant also invokes article 11 of the Convention, noting that article 51 of the State party’s Code of Criminal Procedure9 provides for a period of police custody of up to 12 days, which, in practice, is often exceeded.10 The right to be assisted by a lawyer while in police custody is not guaranteed in Algerian legislation. Moreover, there is no legal provision that prohibits the use of a statement obtained under torture as evidence. 3.5 The complainant also maintains that, in the case of Mounir Hammouche, the State party has violated article 12 of the Convention, which requires States parties to proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed.11 None of the requests made by the victim’s family, in which the facts are brought to the attention of prosecutors, has led to an investigation, whereas such an investigation should have been conducted without delay.12 Although an autopsy was supposedly ordered following the death of Mounir Hammouche, no report has been transmitted to his family, which raises doubts about the veracity of the State party’s claims. Similarly, an investigation was supposedly undertaken, but the results have never 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 6 Houch Chnou, Oued Namous, Reggane, El Harrach and Ouargla, and all military units reporting directly to the Intelligence and Security Department (DRS). The complainant refers to the concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee concerning the consideration of the third periodic report of Algeria, CCPR/C/DZA/CO/3, para. 11. The complainant refers to general comment No. 2 (2008) of the Committee against Torture, Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixty-third Session, Supplement No. 44 (A/63/44), annex VI, para. 13. Ibid., para. 13. Order No. 66-155 of 8 June 1966 on the Code of Criminal Procedure, as amended and supplemented by Act No. 06-22 of 20 December 2006. The complainant refers to the concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee, op. cit., para. 18. The complainant refers to communications No. 187/2001, Thabti v. Tunisia, decision adopted on 14 November 2003, para. 10.4; No. 60/1996, M’Barek v. Tunisia, decision adopted on 10 November 1999, para. 11.7; and No. 59/1996, Blanco Abad v. Spain, decision adopted on 14 May 1998, para. 8.2. The complainant refers to communications No. 8/1991, Qani Halimi-Nedzibi v. Austria, decision adopted on 18 November 1993, para. 13.5; M’Barek v. Tunisia, para. 11.7; and Blanco Abad v. Spain, para. 8.2. GE.13-49959