independent court, e.g. through habeas corpus proceedings detention order and any extension of a detention order before the competent court. However, this mechanism was not effective in practice. this regard. (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 It appeared that judges and prosecutors did not ask detainees how they had been treated in police custody. Non-governmental sources: With a few individual exceptions, judges do not ask detainees about their treatment. (j) Those legally arrested should not be held in facilities under the control of their interrogators or investigators for more than the time required by law to obtain a judicial warrant of pre-trial detention, which should not exceed 48 hours. After this period they should be transferred to a pre-trial facility under a different authority, where no further unsupervised contact with the interrogators of investigators should be permitted Article 100 CCP stipulates that a police officer who was not satisfied with a testimony should send the person concerned to the Public Prosecutor within 24 hours, who in turn had to question him or her within 24 hours. An individual could bring action for deprivation of liberty against an official who kept him or her in custody for over 24 hours without questioning. However, in practice persons were at times detained longer than 24 hours. Non-governmental sources: There were no developments in this regard. (k) The maintenance of custody registers be scrupulously ensured, including recording of the time and place of arrest, the identity of the personnel, the actual place of detention, the state of health upon arrival of the person at the detention centre, the time at which the family and a lawyer were contacted and visited the detainee, and information on compulsory medical examinations upon being brought to a detention centre and upon transfer On paper, a file regarding each detainee informed about the time of arrival, state of health, details, reason for detention, authority which issued the arrest warrant or verdict, and all details relating to the person’s time at the centre. Upon arrival, detainees were to undergo a medical check-up and the police doctor should prepare a medical report, indicating whether there were any traces of torture. If that was the case, a forensic report had to be prepared and judicial authorities were to be notified. However, this process was 89 In regular prisons, the registers generally contained the name of the detainee or prisoner, the nationality and charge, if any; the doctors had medical files of Non-governmental sources: There were no developments in this regard. A/HRC/13/39/Add.6 A register at the GID contained information about any detainee’s name, nationality and charge. Another register recorded visitors, and a third register contained medical records. Outside of the GID, detainees did not receive a standard medical examination.