Advance unedited version (a) Whether the person concerned had been previously arbitrarily arrested in his/her State of origin without a warrant and/or he/she has been denied fundamental guarantees for a detainee in police custody, such as 30: (i) the notification of the reasons of his/her arrest in writing and in a language that he/she understands; 31 (ii) access to a family member or a person of his/her choice for informing them of his/her arrest; 32 (iii) access to a lawyer free of charge when necessary and, at his/her request, access to a lawyer of his/her choice at his/her own expenses, for his/her defense; 33 (iv) access to an independent medical doctor for an examination and treatment of his/her health or, for this purpose, to a medical doctor of his/her choice, at his/her own expenses; 34 (v) access to an independent specialized medical entity to certify his/her allegations of having been subjected to torture; 35 (vi) access to a competent and independent judicial institution which is empowered to judge his/her claims for the treatment in detention within the timeframe set by the law or within a reasonable time frame to be assessed for each particular case. 36 (b) Whether the person has been a victim of brutality or excessive use of force by public officials based on any form of discrimination in the State of origin or would be exposed to such brutality in the State to which he/she is being deported;37 (c) Whether, in the State of origin or in the State to which he/she is being deported, the person has been or would be victim of violence including gender based/sexual violence, in public or in private, or gender-based persecution, genital mutilation, amounting to torture without intervention of the competent authorities of the State concerned for the protection of the victim;38 30 See e.g. Ali Fadel v. Switzerland, paras. 7.7 - 7.8, supra fn. 22. See e.g. communications No. 379/2009, Sylvie Bakatu-Bia v. Sweden, decision adopted on 3 June 2011, paras. 2.2 and 10.5; Ali Fadel v. Switzerland, supra fn. 22, para. 7.7. 32 See e.g. communications No. 500/2015, Ramírez and others v. Mexico, decision adopted on 4 August 2015, para. 17.5.; and No. 522/2012, Patrice Gahungu v. Burundi, decision adopted on 10 August 2015, para. 7.6. 33 See e.g. communications No. 310/2007, Tony Chahin v. Sweden, decision adopted on 30 May 2011, para. 9.4; No. 475/2011, Nasirov v. Kazakhstan, decision adopted on 14 May 2014, paras. 2.2, 11.6 and 11.9. 34 See e.g. Ramírez and others v. Mexico, para. 17.5., supra fn. 32; No. 522/2012, Patrice Gahungu v. Burundi, decision adopted on 10 August 2015, para. 7.7.; No. 553/2013, X. v. Burundi, decision adopted on 10 August 2015, para. 7.5. 35 See e.g. communication No. 396/2009, Combey Brice Magloire Gbadjavi v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 1 June 2012, paras. 2.1, 7.5 - 7.8; and Ali Fadel v. Switzerland, paras. 2.4 and 7.6. - 7.8., supra fn. 22. 36 See e.g. Ramírez and others v. Mexico, paras.17.5-17.6, supra fn. 32; No. 522/2012, Patrice Gahungu v. Burundi, para. 7.7., supra fn. 34; No. 553/2013, X v. Burundi, decision adopted on 10 August 2015, paras. 7.5 – 7.6. 37 See e.g. communication No. 580/2014, F.K. v. Denmark, decision adopted on 23 November 2015, paras. 7.5 - 7.6. 38 See e.g. Sylvie Bakatu-Bia v. Sweden, paras. 10.5 – 10.7., supra fn. 31. 31 8