CAT/C/RWA/CO/1 Fundamental legal safeguards 12. While noting that fundamental legal safeguards for detainees are provided for in the legislation of the State party, the Committee is concerned at reports that with regard to detainees held in police stations, prisons or other detention facilities, fundamental legal safeguards are not systematically applied in accordance with international standards. The Committee is particularly concerned that detainees can allegedly be held for a long period in pretrial detention without appearing before a judge, and that they do not have access to a lawyer or a doctor of their choice or to an independent medical examination, in accordance with international standards. In addition, they do not have the right to notify a family member or a relative. The Committee is further concerned at the lack of a centralized registration system of those deprived of their liberty (art. 2). The State party should take prompt and effective measures to ensure, in law and in practice, that all detainees are afforded all legal safeguards from the very outset of their detention. These include the rights of each detainee to be informed of the reasons for his/her arrest, including any charges against him/her; to be informed of his/her rights in connection with his/her detention; to have prompt access to a lawyer or, if necessary, to legal aid, and to be able to consult privately therewith; to have access to an independent medical examination, preferably by a doctor of his/her choice; to notify a relative of his/her detention; to have a lawyer present during any interrogation by the police; to be assisted by an interpreter, if necessary; to be brought promptly before a judge and to have the lawfulness of his/her detention reviewed by a court. The State party should ensure that public officials, in particular judicial officers, medical officers, prison doctors, prison officials and magistrates who have reasons to suspect an act of torture or ill-treatment, record and report any such suspected or claimed act to the relevant authorities. The State party should also consider establishing a centralized registration system of those deprived of their liberty System of monitoring places of detention 13. The Committee notes the existence of laws, regulations and instructions as well as information that the National Commission for Human Rights, the Office of the Ombudsman and some non-governmental organizations are monitoring police stations and prisons. However, the Committee is concerned at the lack of a mechanism to ensure the monitoring of all places of detention. It also regrets the limited information provided about the existence of a complaints mechanism in such detention facilities, including possibilities to lodge complaints without fear of reprisal (arts. 2, 11, 12, 13 and 16). The State party should facilitate the conduct of more visits to places of deprivation of liberty by institutions and non-governmental organizations for monitoring purposes, and ensure that detainees can lodge complaints without fear of reprisal. Complaints should be promptly, impartially and independently investigated. Enforced disappearances 14. The Committee expresses its concern about reported cases of enforced disappearance and the State party’s failure to provide information about the whereabouts of the disappeared or to thoroughly investigate the disappearances, particularly in the cases of André Kagwa Rwisereka and Augustin Cyiza. The Committee is also concerned that 21 of the 24 cases submitted to the State party by the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances remain outstanding (arts. 2, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15). The State party should take all appropriate steps to effectively protect all persons from enforced disappearance. It should ensure that all cases of enforced disappearance are thoroughly investigated and that those responsible for enforced 4