32 MONITORING OF CUSTODIAL SETTINGS IN UKRAINE: Commissioner for Human Rights”, laws and regulations related to the respect of human rights and freedoms and the procedure of applying to the Ombudsman or to other public authorities and international organizations as established in the Law of Ukraine “On Preliminary Detention”. Typical violations of human rights and freedoms found in 2013 The new Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine (CCP) gave effect to a number of important provisions expected to minimize the risk of ill-treatment of detainees during pretrial proceedings. One such measure provides detainees with the right to immediately notify family members, close relatives or other individuals at own choice about the detention and the place of custody. Moreover, the official who made the arrest is to immediately notify the authority or institution authorized by law to provide free legal aid. This requirement is embedded in Art. 213 of the Code. The sequence of relevant actions is described in the Provisions on notification of Centers of free legal aid (approved by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine on December 28, 2011, under No. 1363). Control over compliance with this rule is vested with quite a number of officials. Article 212 of the new CCP provides for appointment, at each pre-trial investigation authority, of one or more officials in charge of detainees who are to ascertain the fact of notification of the free legal aid center and of the third parties about the detention. Apart from that, in accordance with p. 6.6.2 of the ordinance approved by MIA Order of 28.04.2009 No. 181 the police officer on duty is obligated to ascertain whether the free legal aid center was notified and to make such notification on his own if the arresting officer failed to make such a notification. Unfortunately, this requirement is systematically violated. As a result, cruel treatment by the police of persons held in custodial settings remains a significant problem in Ukraine, as evidenced by numerous applications to the Ombudsman and by the results of NPM Department’s and civic activists’ inspection visits to MIA institutions. The main factors conducive to such violations include the following: • not all police units have appointed officials in charge of custody facilities; • custody officers intentionally fail to notify the free legal aid centers, thus enabling investigators or detectives work with detainees as long as possible in order to obtain confessions or conduct other investigative activities (line-up identification, seizure of items, etc.); • custody officers are directly subordinated to the head of investigation subdivision and, consequently, cannot really ensure respect of the rights of detainees and instead of performance of their duties become involved in other duties and tasks; • police officers on duty have no control over the lawfulness of apprehension and do not check whether third parties get notified about arrests. In our opinion, the above mentioned human rights violations in the work of the police may be minimized by legislative prohibition to conduct interrogations, interviews and other investigative actions pursued by operational and other staff of the law-enforcement agency in any premises that are not equipped with video surveillance and recording systems.