A/65/44 64 of the Code of Criminal Procedure allow prosecutors exceptionally to interrogate detainees without lawyers in “cases of urgency”. The Committee is further concerned that meetings between lawyers and clients reportedly take place in the presence of numerous other persons and attorneys (arts. 2, 11 and 12). The State party should promptly implement effective measures to ensure that all detainees are afforded, in practice, all fundamental legal safeguards from the very outset of their detention. These include, in particular, the right to have prompt access to a lawyer and an independent medical examination, to notify a relative, and to be informed of their rights at the time of detention, including about the charges laid against them, as well as to appear expeditiously before a judge. The State party should also take effective measures to ensure that “lawyers’ rooms” provide for the confidentiality of client-lawyer consultations. Administrative detention (13) According to the State party’s report (para. 45), the Government has instructed administrative court judges to end the practice of administrative detention and a large number of persons have been released. However, the Committee expresses its grave concern at the continued practice of administrative detention (according to the replies to the lists of issues, more than 20,000 persons were held in such detention in 2006 and this was reduced to approximately 16,000). The Committee is particularly concerned that the Crime Prevention Act of 1954 provides for administrative governors affiliated with the Ministry of Interior to detain any person suspected of perpetrating a crime or any person considered a threat to the community for a period of one year, renewable indefinitely. The Committee is also concerned that the Code of Criminal Procedures currently allows arrest and detention without explicit legal grounds, as well as arrest without objective supportive grounds (arts. 2, 11 and 16). Since administrative detention puts detainees beyond judicial control and hence at risk of measures in contravention of the Convention, the Committee urges the State party to take all appropriate measures to abolish the practice of administrative detention. The State party should amend the domestic laws cited above to bring them into conformity with international human rights standards and the State party’s obligations under the Convention. Special court system (14) The Committee expresses its grave concern at the special court system within the security services, including the State Security Court, the Special Police Court and the Military Tribunal of the General Intelligence Directorate, which have reportedly shielded military and security personnel alleged to be responsible for human rights violations from legal accountability. The Committee is concerned that transparency, independence and impartiality are jeopardized by this system and that the procedures in the special courts are not always consistent with fair trial standards (arts. 2 and 12). With reference to its previous recommendation (A/50/44, para. 175), the Committee calls on the State party to take immediate steps to ensure that the functioning of the State Security Court and other special courts are brought into full conformity with the provisions of the Convention and international standards for courts of law and, in particular, that accused persons are granted the right to appeal against decisions of the Court; alternatively, the State party should abolish such special courts. Monitoring and inspection of places of detention (15) The Committee appreciates the information from the representatives of the State party that a number of bodies, including the National Centre for Human Rights, the Grievances and Human Rights Office of the Public Security Department, some 104 GE.10-44721