(b) Establish and promote an effective mechanism for receiving complaints of sexual violence, including in custodial facilities, and ensure that law enforcement personnel are trained on the absolute prohibition of sexual violence and rape in custody, as a form of torture, as well as on receiving such type of complaints; (c) Change the performance evaluation system of investigators so as to eliminate any incentive for obtaining confessions and take additional measures in the field of human rights education of police officers. (8) The Committee is particularly concerned about allegations of torture or other ill-treatment in temporary detention isolation facilities (IVSs) and in investigation isolation facilities (SIZOs) under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Internal Affairs or National Security Committee (NSC), especially in the context of national and regional security and anti-terrorism operations conducted by the NSC. The Committee notes with particular concern reports that the NSC has used counter-terrorism operations to target vulnerable groups or groups perceived as a threat to national and regional security, such as asylum-seekers and members or suspected members of banned Islamic groups or Islamist parties (art. 2). The State party should transfer detention and investigation facilities currently under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Internal Affairs or National Security Committee to the Ministry of Justice and guarantee that Public Monitoring Commissions have the unlimited right to conduct unannounced visits to these facilities at their own initiative. The State party should also ensure that the fight against terrorism does not lead to breaches of the Convention nor impose undue hardship on vulnerable groups. Insufficient safeguards governing initial period of detention (9) The Committee is deeply concerned at allegations that torture and ill-treatment of suspects commonly takes place during the period between apprehension and the formal registration of detainees at the police station, thus providing them with insufficient legal safeguards. The Committee notes in particular: (a) The failure to acknowledge and record the actual time of apprehension of a detainee, as well as unrecorded periods of pretrial detention and investigation; (b) Restricted access to lawyers and independent doctors and failure to notify detainees fully of their rights at the time of apprehension; (c) The failure to introduce, through the legal reform of July 2008, habeas corpus procedure in full conformity with international standards (art. 2). The State party should promptly implement effective measures to ensure that a person is not subject to de facto unacknowledged detention and that all detained suspects are afforded, in practice, all fundamental legal safeguards during their detention. These include, in particular, from the actual moment of deprivation of liberty, the right to access a lawyer and an independent medical examination, to inform a relative and to be informed of their rights, including as to the charges laid against them, as well as being promptly presented to a judge. The State party should ensure that all detained persons are guaranteed the ability to challenge effectively and expeditiously the lawfulness of their detention through habeas corpus. (10) The Committee expresses concern that the right of an arrested person to notify relatives of his/her whereabouts may be postponed for 72 hours from the time of detention, in the case of so-called “exceptional circumstances” (art. 2). The State party should amend article 138 of the Code of Criminal Procedure so as to ensure that no exceptional circumstances may be invoked for postponing the exercise of the right of a detainee to inform a relative of his/her whereabouts. 36