CAT/OP/CHE/ROSP/1 systematic attack directed against a civilian population, that is, acts of torture committed in the context of a crime against humanity. It follows therefrom that acts of torture committed during arrest, police custody or enforcement of a penalty, or during any other kind of deprivation of liberty, including in psychiatric hospitals, administrative detention facilities or social-care homes, would not be punished owing to the lack of elements constituting the offence of torture under ordinary law. Consequently, article 4 of the Convention has not been incorporated into the State party’s national law. 43. Recalling the recommendations of the Committee against Torture and the Human Rights Committee,7 and in order to give effect to article 4 of the Convention against Torture, the Subcommittee recommends that the State party introduce in its Criminal Code a specific offence of torture, defined in accordance with article 1 of the Convention. Fundamental safeguards 44. It was explained to the delegation that detained persons had access to legal safeguards from the start of their interrogation. Thus, during the preceding three hours, they had no official information about their rights or any access to family members, legal counsel or a doctor. The same is true of access to a lawyer “within the first hour”; while the principle is enshrined in the Code of Criminal Procedure, in general access effectively begins not when a person is stopped and detained by the police, but from the time of his or her custodial arrest. 45. The Subcommittee invites the State party to ensure that all persons who are deprived of their liberty have the benefit from the very outset of the deprivation of liberty that is, from the time that they are deprived of freedom of movement by the police of all the fundamental legal safeguards, namely, the right of access to a lawyer, the right to contact family members and the right to an independent medical examination by a doctor of their choice.8 Internal and external complaints mechanisms 46. The Subcommittee is concerned about the lack of information on mechanisms for filing complaints in the event of ill-treatment or other breaches or omissions. It notes that an effective, independent and accessible complaints mechanism is an important safeguard against ill-treatment of persons deprived of their liberty, who must be able to report any abuse committed by a public official or other person acting in an official capacity and to bring complaints against such persons. 47. The Subcommittee recommends that the State party guarantee that mechanisms are in place for the filing by persons deprived of their liberty of complaints concerning acts or omissions by the authorities responsible for their treatment. Such mechanisms should be available within all places of deprivation of liberty, and information about them should be transparent and disseminated widely in several languages. 48. The State party should also ensure that all allegations or complaints concerning acts of torture or ill-treatment are transmitted without delay and in an impartial manner to the competent authorities, that they are investigated and, if necessary, that dissuasive penalties are imposed. V. Visits to places of deprivation of liberty A. Overview of the situation 49. According to data from the Federal Statistical Office, on 14 March 2019 there were 7,394 detention places with an occupancy rate of 93.9 per cent. In facilities coming under the 7 8 8 CAT/C/CHE/CO/7, par. 7 ; et CCPR/C/CHE/CO/4, par. 31. Le Sous-Comité fait ici écho aux recommandations du Comité contre la torture (CAT/C/CHE/CO/7, par. 8) ainsi qu’au rapport au Conseil fédéral suisse relatif à la visite effectuée en Suisse par le CPT du 13 au 24 avril 2015 [document CPT/Inf(2016)18, par. 19 et suiv.]. GE.21-03779