(h) All detainees be effectively guaranteed the ability to challenge the lawfulness of the detention before an independent court, e.g. through habeas corpus proceedings (i) Judges and prosecutors routinely ask persons brought from police custody how they have been treated and, even in the absence of a formal complaint from the defendant, order an independent medical examination in accordance with the Istanbul Protocol (h) All detainees be effectively guaranteed the ability to challenge the lawfulness of the detention before an independent court, e.g. through habeas corpus proceedings Situation during visit (A/HRC/4/33/Add.3) which lacked independence and impartiality. CCP article121 to 129 guaranteed the right to habeas corpus. They also held that a detainee could challenge a detention order and any extension of a detention order before the competent court. However, this mechanism was not effective in practice. It appeared that judges and prosecutors did not ask detainees how they had been treated in police custody. CCP article121 to 129 guaranteed the right to habeas corpus. They also held that a detainee could challenge a detention order and any extension of a detention order before the competent court. However, this Steps taken in previous years (to be found in A/HRC/7/3/Add.2) Information received on steps taken since December 2007/current situation Non-governmental sources: The right to habeas corpus is not effective in practice. Non-governmental sources: The right to habeas corpus is not effective in practice. A/HRC/10/44/Add.5 page 54 Recommendation (A/HRC/4/33/Add.3) independent courts