CAT/C/ESP/CO/6 Incommunicado detention and fundamental legal safeguards 10. The Committee takes note of the statements by the State party to the effect that incommunicado detention is an exceptional regime that requires court authorization a reasoned decision in writing in every case, and direct continuous monitoring of the individual prisoner’s situation by the court. The Committee appreciates the fact that there has been a sharp decline in the use of this form of detention. It is also interested to note that there is a bill to amend the Criminal Procedure Act that will also regulate incommunicado detention. However, in spite of all that, the Committee remains deeply concerned at the maintenance of incommunicado detention for up to 13 days for crimes of terrorism or crimes committed by an armed gang, and the impairment that that entails of the fundamental legal safeguards afforded to persons deprived of their liberty (arts. 2 and 16). Referring to its previous concluding observations (CAT/C/ESP/CO/5, para. 12), the Committee reiterates its recommendation that the State party review the incommunicado detention regime with a view to abolition, and that it ensure that all persons deprived of their liberty, particularly children, enjoy fundamental legal safeguards from the moment of arrest. The State party should guarantee the right of all detainees to have the assistance of counsel and to communicate in confidence with their legal representative; to contact family members or other persons of their choice, who should be informed of their place of detention; and to be promptly examined by an independent doctor. The State party should also ensure that the amended Criminal Procedure Act does not place any restrictions, even discretionary ones, on the rights of persons deprived of their liberty. Audiovisual recording 11. The Committee welcomes the fact that the court may order the recording of interviews for use as evidence in criminal proceedings, but is concerned that video surveillance systems are not yet in place in all police stations and places of detention. It is also concerned at reports that, in places of detention where a video surveillance system is in place, police procedures are not always recorded (arts. 2 and 16). The State party should ensure the audiovisual recording of all procedures in police stations and places of detention involving persons deprived of their liberty, including those in incommunicado detention, except in cases where it might violate the right to privacy or detainees’ right to confidential consultation with their lawyer or doctor. Such recordings should be kept in secure facilities and be made available to investigators, detainees and their lawyers. Diplomatic assurances 12. The Committee takes note of the information from the State party to the effect that, if in adjudicating an extradition case there are substantial grounds for believing that a person may be in danger of being subjected to torture if extradition is granted, the person will not be handed over. However, the Committee is concerned at reports of extradition and expulsion of foreigners to other countries even where there is a real and foreseeable risk of them being subjected to torture or ill treatment, at times relying on diplomatic guarantees. The Committee is particularly concerned that the State party accepted diplomatic assurances in the cases of Alexandr Pavlov, though he was ultimately granted asylum in Spain, and Ali Aarrass, who was handed over to the Moroccan authorities in 2010, despite there being a risk of torture if he was returned and the fact that the Human Rights Committee had requested interim measures of protection (see CCPR/C/111/D/2008/2010, para. 8.1). In the latter case the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment followed up on these reports during his visit to Morocco in 2012 (A/HRC/25/74, p. 64) (arts. 3, 6 and 7). GE.15-08414 3