The State party should provide information on the criteria used to establish that a piece of information is a State secret and on the number of cases falling under the purview of the legislation on State secrets. The State party should ensure that the determination as to whether a matter is a State secret can be appealed before an independent tribunal. The State party should ensure that every suspect is afforded the right to have prompt access to an independent lawyer, where possible of their own choosing, including in cases involving “State secrets”. 2. Data collection (17) Despite its previous conclusions and recommendations that the State party provide the Committee with statistical information (A/55/44, para. 130), the Committee regrets that this was not provided. The absence of comprehensive or disaggregated data on complaints, investigations, prosecutions and convictions of cases of torture and ill-treatment by law enforcement personnel, as well as on detention conditions, abuses by public officials, administrative detention, death penalty cases, and violence against women, ethnic and religious minorities severely hampers the identification of possible patterns of abuse requiring attention (arts. 2 and 19). The State party should compile statistical data relevant to the monitoring of the implementation of the Convention at the national level, disaggregated by gender, ethnicity, age, geographical region and type and location of place of deprivation of liberty, including data on complaints, investigations, prosecutions and convictions of cases of torture and ill-treatment, detention conditions, abuses by public officials, administrative detention, death penalty cases, and violence against women, ethnic and religious minorities. 3. Harassment of defence lawyers (18) The Committee is concerned about information received according to which article 306 of the Penal Code, along with article 39 of the Criminal Procedure Law, allowing prosecutors to arrest lawyers on grounds of “perjury” or “false testimony”, has been used to intimidate some defence lawyers. The Committee also notes with great concern reported harassment of lawyers, such as Teng Biao and Gao Zhisheng, who have tried to offer their services to petitioners, human rights defenders and other dissidents, and reports that this harassment was conducted by unaccountable personnel alleged to be hired by State authorities (art. 2). The State party should abolish any legal provisions which undermine the independence of lawyers and should investigate all attacks against lawyers and petitioners, with a view to prosecution as appropriate. The State party should take immediate action to investigate acts of intimidation and other ways of impeding the independent work of lawyers. 4. Harassment and violence against human rights defenders and petitioners (19) The Committee expresses its concern at information on a pattern of harassment and violence against human rights defenders, such as Hu Jia. Such actions severely hamper the capacity of civil-society monitoring groups to function, and do not encourage information to be shared, investigations to occur and cases to be brought to the authorities. Despite the State party’s assurance that no unofficial personnel have been hired by public authorities to harass lawyers or petitioners, the Committee is concerned at the persistent reports on attempts to curb the activities of human rights activists, such as Li Heping. This includes violence by unofficial personnel allegedly engaged by public authorities to harass lawyers and petitioners, the use of different forms of administrative detention, such as “residential surveillance”, re-education through labour and secret places of detention. The Committee is concerned by allegations that unofficial personnel have not been held accountable for such behaviour (arts. 12 and 16). 21