Analysis of observance of the right to notify a third party of their choice showed systematic instances of the officials’ failure to inform close relatives on deprivation of liberty, including in relation to underage persons who belong to a vulnerable category and, consequently, require additional protection. In addition, Article 5 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms requires that a person be informed in a clear and understandable manner of the reasons for arrest. It also contains provisions for a trial within a reasonable time and compensation in cases of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions. In addition, article 208§4 of the CPC establishes an obligation for the competent official who apprehended the person to immediately inform the apprehended person, in a language known to him, of the grounds for the apprehension and of the commission of what crime he is suspected. Such information, at the very least, indicates that there are grounds for apprehensions, as well as allows the apprehended persons to understand his/her procedural status. At the same time, failure to inform can suggest lack of confidence of the official conducting apprehension in the matters of the actual status of the person, as well as evidence excess of power. For instance, during a visit to Odesa city directorate of the Main MIA Directorate in Odesa region20, communication with persons detained at the THF revealed that police official who conducted their apprehension did not follow requirements of Articles 208, 209, 210, 213 of the CPC in relation to immediate notification of the grounds for the apprehension and the alleged crime; there is no proper advice on the right to benefit from defender’s assistance, to legal aid. In addition, relatives were not informed promptly on apprehension and whereabouts of persons, and neither was the institution providing free legal aid. Violations of the CPC of Ukraine on drawing up reports on apprehension of a person suspected of the commission of crime, in particular in the aspect of indication of time and place of actual apprehension Article 208 §5 of the CPC states that on apprehension of a person suspected of the commission of crime, a report shall be drawn up in which, in addition to information specified in Article 104 of this Code, the following shall be indicated: place, date and exact time (hours and minutes) of apprehension under Article 209 of this Code. The moment of apprehension defined by Article 209 of the CPC (an individual is considered to be apprehended if he/she, with the use of force or through obedience to the order, has to stay next to the competent official or in premises prescribed by the competent official) constitutes the onset of time limits for notification of suspicion (24 hours following apprehension)21, bringing the person before a court for consideration of a restraint measure (within 60 hours), determination of detention as a restraint 20 21 http://www1.ombudsman.gov.ua/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4088 Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (article 278). 59