E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.6 page 9 Right to be informed of the reasons for the arrest and on the rights entitled to while in custody 22. Rule 36 of the Rules on the Handling of Criminal Cases by Public Security Authorities stipulates that, from the day a criminal suspect is first interrogated or subject to compulsory measures by a public security authority, he/she must be informed on record of his/her rights to engage a lawyer. Access to legal representatives 23. Article 96 of the CPL provides that access by a lawyer is possible following the first interrogation, but not immediate access to the public security case file.20 The role of the lawyers in criminal cases is also codified in the Lawyers Law.21 Rule 11 of the Rules concerning Several Issues Encountered in the Implementation of the CPL22 provides that a visit with a suspect requested by a lawyer must be arranged within 48 hours. However, in the case of detainees suspected of being organizers, leaders or members of a criminal ring, terrorist movements or smuggling, drug-dealing or embezzlement conspiracy involving more than two accomplices, a visit request by his lawyer must be arranged within five days.23 24. Although access to a lawyer is guaranteed by Chinese legislation, this safeguard is seriously limited in practice and particularly in cases where a State secret is involved, as lawyers must obtain approval of the investigating organ pursuant to article 96 of CPL. Neither the CPL nor other regulations provide a clear-cut definition of this concept. Article 8 (6) of the Law on Preservation of State Secrets also stipulates that details of the investigation of crimes are to be protected as “State secrets”. The Rules on State Secrets and Detailed Classification Levels for Issues in Public Security Work24 also state that all details of criminal cases under investigation should be considered “State secrets”. As no law provides a clear definition of “State secrets”, the Special Rapporteur is particularly concerned about the restriction on the right to defence imposed by regulations issued by public security departments, prison administrations or prosecutors when a case involves national security or State secrets, following on the concern expressed by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention after its 2004 visit.25 25. In addition to the requirement to obtain permission, lawyers and defendants face another series of obstacles triggered either by rules and regulations issued by public security departments and prosecutors which impose further restrictions on the access to lawyers, or by individual crime investigators who can independently prevent lawyers from meeting with their clients. Several defence lawyers, as well as leading legal academics interviewed by the Special Rapporteur, claimed that meetings between lawyers and detainees were closely supervised by the authorities and were often subjected to strict time limits, that lawyers could hardly obtain the necessary information from the prosecution, that lawyers who have too vigorously defended their clients can be detained and convicted of various crimes. Indeed, under article 306 of the CL, lawyers can be sentenced to up to seven years’ imprisonment for destroying or fabricating evidence, forcing or inciting a witness to change his or her testimony or committing perjury. Article 38 adds to this provision by making “interfering with the proceedings before judicial organs” an offence. This “sword of Damocles”, as it is known, can be invoked to harass, intimidate and sanction lawyers. Under it, any lawyer who counsels a client to repudiate a forced confession, for example, could risk prosecution. Finally, witnesses rarely appear in court,