Monitoring Police custody
Ferspera quatus quosti optur audisint maximus ea ea sae sim con
non paris evel modi coreptaque pos mi, sit la velessus et aciendant
aborias eserisc iumendignis quas elest, utatem dolo comniet aut aut
eum qui as maio to officimpore nes exerestisque rende comnietur?
Gias quia pro molorit asperferum dendaer issimint porem rem sum
et volum alis enis aut plaboru ptinvendae doluptatent quistia consequist quiste pro toribusam quibus nonsenet ad ut preceperspid et
iur? VitDuci utemporerum harcit endia quas dolutas essum autectet
volo enis ad quoditi simolor porectem nobis et faceres sintorpor aut
lant voles quist quias doluptatis est alignis nobit et alitatum aut lab
il es dolo berrum reped et, ipsandus quiaspere, cuscim eos nulpa a
volliquat et poreptur?
Obitatqui nullupta none ne poriber ferspero di conem esed quat.
Cor at omnisciendi re venem entiuribus.

ISBN 978-2-940337-51-4

Monitoring Police custody - A practical guide

A practical guide

30.- CHF 25.- €
EN

∙

Monitoring Police
custody
A practical guide

Monitoring Police Custody
A practical guide

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide
Published in January 2013 by the Association for the Prevention of Torture.
For copies of this publication and further information, please contact:
APT
P.O. Box 137 · CH - 1211 Geneva 19
Tel: +41 22 919 2170
Fax: +41 22 919 21 80
apt@apt.ch · www.apt.ch

The Association for the Prevention of Torture (APT) is an independent
non-governmental organisation based in Geneva, working globally to
prevent torture and other ill-treatment.
The APT was founded in 1977 by the Swiss banker and lawyer JeanJacques Gautier. Since then the APT has become a leading organisation in
its field. Its expertise and advice is sought by international organisations,
governments, human rights institutions and other actors. The APT has
played a key role in establishing international and regional standards and
mechanisms to prevent torture, among them the Optional Protocol to
the UN Convention against Torture.
The APT’s vision is a world without torture or any other cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment.

© 2013 , Association for the Prevention of Torture (APT) All rights reserved. Materials
contained in this publication may be freely quoted or reprinted, provided credit is
given to the source. Requests for permission to reproduce or translate the publication
should be addressed to the APT.
ISBN 978-2-940337-51-4
Layout: Anja Härtwig, APT
Printing: Imprimerie Villière, France
Cover: The APT would like to thank Mr Wim Pietersen, a police
officer from The Netherlands, for graciously letting us use
some images of his extensive collection of police badges and
patches. For further information: www.wikacollection.com
Images chapter 1 & 3: © APT/Chiara Tamburini
Image chapter 2: © APT/Delmi Alvarez

Table of contents

Table of Contents

Table of contents

Table of contents	
iii
Acknowledgements	vii
Foreword	ix
Key Abbreviations	
xi
Introduction	1

Chapter I: Monitoring the Police in Context	

3

1. Police powers and human rights	
1.1. Police and human rights	
1.2. Police powers and risks for detainees	
1.3. Persons in situations of vulnerability	
1.4. Police detention	
1.5. Police corruption	

4
4
5
7
9
11

2. The specificities of monitoring police facilities	
2.1. Monitoring the police: a broad understanding	
2.2. Interviews in private	
2.3. Key features of monitoring visits to police stations	

11
11
13
14

3. Preventive monitoring: an analytical framework	
3.1. Basic principles for monitoring places of detention	

15
20

Chapter II: Visits to Police Stations	

21

Part A. Preparing for a visit	

22

1. Research and information gathering	
1.1. Laws and regulations	
1.2. Registers	
1.3. Relevant information	
1.4. Contacts with external sources	
1.5. Management structures	

22
22
23
23
24
24

2. Operational preparation	
2.1. Purpose of the visit	

25
25
iii

Table of contents

Manual on Monitoring Police Custody

2.2. Composition of the visiting team	
2.3. Logistical matters 	
2.4. Points of contact	

25
26
27

3. Material preparation	
3.1. Dress code	
3.2. Documentation and equipment	

27
27
28

4. Mental Preparation	

28

Part B. Conducting a visit	

30

1. Arriving at the police station	
1.1. Arriving together	
1.2. First contact	
1.3. Delays and obstruction	
1.4. Preventing the removal of detainees	
1.5. Triangulating information	

30
30
31
31
33
34

2. Initial talk with the head of the police station	
2.1. Objectives of the initial talk	
2.1.1. Introducing the monitoring body’s mandate and
the methodology of the visit	
2.1.2. Relationship building	
2.1.3. Obtaining the necessary information	

35
36

3. Overview of the premises	

39

4. Reviewing custody registers and other documents	
4.1. Local orders and instructions	
4.2. Custody records	
4.3. Information to look for when examining custody registers	
4.4. Other information	
4.4.1. Contact with the outside world	
4.4.2. Record of incidents	
4.4.3. Record of police procedures and operations	

46
47
47
49
53
53
54
54

5. Private interviews with persons deprived of their liberty	
5.1. Confidentiality of interviews	

56
58

iv

36
36
37

Table of contents

59
59
61
61
62
65
66
69

6. Interviews with police staff and others	

70

7. Specific issues to be taken into consideration	
7.1. Healthcare	
7.1.1. Medical examinations	
7.1.2. Healthcare staff	
7.1.3. Referrals to healthcare professionals	
7.1.4. Medical records	
7.1.5. Medicine stock and first aid supplies	
7.1.6. Allegations of torture and other ill-treatment	
7.2. Other issues	
7.2.1. Safety and Security	
7.2.2. Possible torture implements	
7.2.3. Witnessing police interviews	

73
73
73
74
75
75
76
76
77
77
78
79

8. Final talk with the head of the police station	

79

Part C. After a visit	

80

1. Internal reporting	

81

2. Visit reports	

82

3. Thematic reports	

83

4. Annual reports	

84

5. Drafting recommendations	

84

6. Following up on recommendations, including through
dialogue with other actors	

87

Table of contents

5.2. Interviewing individually or in pairs	
5.3. Selecting interviewees	
5.4. ‘Dangerous’ detainees	
5.5. Where to interview	
5.6. Starting interviews 	
5.7. Working with an interpreter	
5.8. Asking questions	
5.9. Closing interviews	

v

Manual on Monitoring Police Custody

Table of contents

Chapter III: International Standards Relating to
Police Powers and Police Custody	

89

1. Treatment	
1.1. Torture and other ill-treatment	
1.2. Incommunicado detention	
1.3. Use of force and firearms	
1.4. Means of restraint	
1.5. Arrest	
1.6. Searches	
1.7. Interrogations	
1.8. Transfers	
1.9. Police participation in forced expulsions	

93
94
99
102
106
108
111
113
116
118

2. Fundamental Safeguards	
2.1. Right to information	
2.2. Notification of deprivation of liberty to relatives or a third party	
2.3. Access to a doctor	
2.4. Access to a lawyer	

121
121
125
128
133

3. Legal procedures	
3.1. Length of police custody	
3.2. Access to a judge	
3.3. Release in a verifiable manner	

137
137
138
142

4. Procedural safeguards	
4.1. Audio-video recording	
4.2. Custody records	
4.3. Complaints	
4.4. Inspection and monitoring	

144
144
146
149
152

5. Material conditions	

155

6. Police personnel	
6.1. Code of conduct	
6.2. Recruitment	
6.3. Training	
6.4. Uniform and identification	

159
159
162
163
166

vi

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements

The draft was discussed during a meeting, moderated by Jean-Sébastien
Blanc and Tanya Norton (APT detention monitoring advisors), in Geneva on
3 and 4 May 2011. I would like to thank the following experts whose fruitful
comments, during and after the meeting, proved essential:
•	

•	
•	
•	

Silvia Casale, former president of both the European Committee for
the Prevention of Torture and the United Nations Subcommittee on
the Prevention of Torture,
Ralph Crawshaw, former police officer and independent expert on
policing,
Charbel Mattar, adviser on torture and policing to the Minister of the
Interior of Lebanon, and
Hernán Vales, member of the Secretariat of the United Nations
Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture.

The final draft was also reviewed by other experts whose comments allowed
us to broaden the scope of the manual:
•	

Maggie Beirne, former director of the Committee on the
Administration of Justice and member of the APT Advisory Board,
vii

Acknowledgements

On behalf of the APT, I would like to express my gratitude to the experts and
staff members who contributed to this new publication. The original text
was drafted by Michael Kellett, former police officer, independent expert on
policing and APT board member. The first review was made by Auro Fraser, a
former APT staff member who is currently working for the Office of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights in Colombia; Auro also submitted useful
comments on the final version. Jonathan Beynon, physician and human
rights consultant, provided substantive contributions on the medical aspects.
Marcellene Hearn and Matthew Sands, of the APT’s United Nations and Legal
Team, also contributed to the development of Chapter III. Last but not least,
it is mainly thanks to the research, drafting and overall coordination of JeanSébastien Blanc, APT detention monitoring adviser, that this guide finally
came to life.

Manual on Monitoring Police Custody

Acknowledgements

•	
•	
•	
•	

Donche Boshkovski, counsellor for the prevention of torture for the
national preventive mechanism of Macedonia,
Amanda Dissel, APT delegate in South-Africa,
Anna Lawson, expert on disability rights, and
Walter Suntinger, member of the Austrian national preventive
mechanism and APT board member for Austria.

I also would like to extend my gratitude to Emma-Alexia Casale-Katzman,
who edited this manual.
Finally, I wish to thank Juan E. Méndez, United Nations special rapporteur on
torture, who kindly agreed to write the foreword.
Mark Thomson
APT Secretary General

viii

Foreword

Foreword

Torture is one of the most serious violations of a person’s fundamental
rights. It can destroy a person’s dignity, body and mind, and has far-reaching
effects on society. Despite its absolute prohibition under international law,
torture and other ill-treatment remain widespread. These horrendous acts
usually take place behind closed doors, away from any outside view. This is
why independent monitoring of places of deprivation of liberty is crucial in
preventing all sorts of violations.
As the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, I have advocated for
States to open up places of deprivation of liberty to outside scrutiny as a
way of strengthening global efforts to eradicate torture. I have lobbied for
a broader ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against
Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,
which guarantees transparency in all places of detention thanks to a unique
system comprising both international and national visiting bodies.
In 2004, the APT published a practical guide on monitoring places of
detention aimed at strengthening the capacities of those engaged in visits,
particularly to prisons. This guide has since been translated into 17 languages
and is used all over the world. However, practitioners have expressed a need
for more specific guidance on preventive monitoring of the police, especially
as regards police conduct and places under police authority. The APT’s new
manual is therefore a welcome contribution to the field, providing a clear
framework for understanding the specificities of police detention. It provides
a detailed methodology for carrying out visits to police stations, as well as
guidance on analysing the state of implementation of relevant international
standards. This manual will be of great use for monitoring bodies in charge of
visiting places of detention under the authority of the police.

ix

Foreword

A person arrested by the police is in a situation of particular vulnerability. As
the police have special powers, such as the lawful use of force, the detainee
is completely in the hands of the law enforcement agents. This imbalance of
power creates a situation of risk where abuse and torture may take place.

Manual on Monitoring Police Custody

There is still a long way to go before police services the world over treat all
persons humanely and with respect for their dignity. I sincerely hope that this
publication will contribute to changes in practice and also mentalities and
attitudes that will bring us closer to that goal.

Foreword

Professor Juan E. Méndez
Special Rapporteur on Torture and other cruel, inhuman
or degrading treatment or punishment

x

Abbreviations

Key Abbreviations

Abbreviations

ACHPR	African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (also known as
the ‘Banjul Charter’)
ACHR	American Convention on Human Rights (also known as the
‘Pact of San Jose’)
APT	

Association for the Prevention of Torture

BPP	(United Nations) Body of Principles for the Protection of All
Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment
BBTD	

United Nations Basic Principles for the Treatment of Detainees

BPUFF	
(United Nations) Basic Principles on the Use of Force and
Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials
BR	
Bangkok Rules (United Nations Rules for the Treatment of
Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women
Offenders)
CAT	

(United Nations) Committee against Torture

CCLEO	

UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials

CRPD	

UN Convention on the Right of Persons with Disabilities

CPT	European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and inhuman
or degrading treatment or punishment
CRC	

(United Nations) Convention on the Rights of the Child

ECHR	
European Convention on Human Rights (formerly the
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms)
ECPE	

European Code of Police Ethics

ECPT	
European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (formerly
the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms)
xi

Manual on Monitoring Police Custody

EPR	

European Prison Rules

HRC	

Human Rights Council

IACPPT	

Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture

Abbreviations

ICCPR	(United Nations) International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights
ICPAPED	(United Nations) International Convention for the Protection of
All Persons from Enforced Disappearance
NGO	

Non-governmental organisation

OPCAT	
(United Nations) Optional Protocol to the United Nations
Convention against Torture and other cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment
PBPA	
Principles and Best Practices on the Protection of Persons
Deprived of Liberty in the Americas
RIG	‘Robben Island Guidelines’ (Guidelines and Measures for the
Prohibition and Prevention of Torture, Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment in Africa)
RPJDL	(United Nations) Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived
of their Liberty
SARPCCO	
Southern African
Organisation

Regional

Police

Chiefs

Cooperation

SMR	(United Nations) Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of
Prisoners
SPT	(United Nations) Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture and
other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
SRT	

(United Nations) Special Rapporteur on Torture

UN 	

United Nations

UNCAT	United Nations Convention against Torture and other cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
UNGA	

United Nations General Assembly

WGAD	

Working Group on Arbitrary Detention

xii

Introduction

Introduction
Why a guide on the police?

Target audience
This manual will be useful for any person carrying out
•	
•	

monitoring visits to police stations and/or other installations, and
preventive activities concerning the police.

Its primary users will be members of national preventive mechanisms (NPMs)
operating under the requirements of the United Nations (UN) Optional
Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other cruel, inhuman or
degrading or punishment (OPCAT) as NPM mandates cover any type of facility
where persons are, or could be, deprived of liberty, including police stations.
It is also aimed at other organisations and individuals with a mandate or power
to visit such places, including universal and regional visiting mechanisms,
1	

Monitoring Places of Detention: A practical guide, APT, Geneva, April 2004.
Available at http://www.apt.ch/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_
view&gid=58&Itemid=259&lang=en. The terms ‘police’ and ‘law enforcement agencies’
are often used interchangeably. However, ‘police’ is employed in this manual on the
basis that ‘law enforcement agencies’ is often considered a narrower term as the range of
police functions is broader than the enforcement of the law.

1

Introduction

One of the most effective means to prevent torture and other ill-treatment
involves unannounced and regular visits to places of detention to monitor
the treatment and conditions of persons deprived of their liberty. The
Association for the Prevention of Torture (APT) develops tools with the aim
of strengthening the capacities of monitoring bodies. The APT’s practical
guide to Monitoring Places of Detention1 has already been translated into
17 languages; however, because torture most frequently occurs in the early
stages of detention, many professionals have identified the need for a specific
guide on monitoring police stations and police conduct. While the visiting
methodology discussed in this manual has many similarities with approaches
to monitoring other places of detention, including prisons, it is intended as
a focused, specific tool that complements Monitoring Places of Detention.
The manual aims to offer practical guidance and information on best practice
that can be adapted to the needs and objectives of individual contexts, rather
than a series of rules to follow in every situation.

Manual on Monitoring Police Custody

national human rights institutions, civil society organisations, lay visitor
schemes and parliamentarians.

Introduction

The information in the manual will also be useful to
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	

authorities responsible for police stations,
personnel working in police stations,
medical personnel,
lawyers, and
other professionals who have occasion to visit police stations.

The manual is directed at bodies and individuals who already have access
to police stations through their mandate or through specific agreement.
Therefore, the issue of obtaining access to police stations is not covered.
Readers should bear in mind that the APT promotes and recommends a
holistic, integrated approach to the monitoring of places of deprivation of
liberty. Monitoring police stations should always be considered in light of
monitoring other places of detention; when a monitoring body is exclusively
in charge of visiting police stations, its members should consider liaising with
mechanisms in charge of visiting other types of places of detention, especially
prisons.

Structure of the guide
The manual is made up of three main chapters. Chapter I puts police monitoring
in context, highlighting the powers of the police and the relationships
between these powers and human rights issues. The chapter also introduces
the key considerations in monitoring police facilities, providing an analytical
framework for understanding the issues at stake in detention monitoring
from a holistic perspective.
Chapter II discusses the methodology of conducting monitoring visits. Part A
explores how to prepare for visits. Part B focuses on conducting visits. Part C
details key follow-up activities.
Chapter III outlines and discusses the most relevant national and international
standards concerning police detention. Organised on a thematic basis,
the chapter can be used as a stand-alone guide. For each issue concerned
(e.g. the use of restraints), the chapter includes references to relevant legal
documents, a comment clarifying what the standards entail for visiting teams,
and practical tips for monitors.
2

Chapter I
Monitoring the Police in Context

Manual on Monitoring Police Custody

1. Police powers and human rights
1.1. Police and human rights
Police organisations usually present themselves as a service, force or a
combination of the two. The distinction between a service and force can be
described as follows:
[The] ‘force perspective’, or vertical perspective, is clearly
seen in authoritarian policing styles employed by many
police agencies. The other perspective is that of police as a
service provider to communities in their own areas. This ‘service’, or horizontal, perspective is seen in ‘community policing’ and its derivatives: problem oriented and intelligence led
policing.1

Monitoring the Police in Context

I

Despite this conceptual difference, it is generally recognised2 that the main
functions of the police revolve around efforts
•	
•	
•	
•	

to maintain public tranquillity, and law and order, in a given society,
to protect and respect individuals’ fundamental rights and
freedoms,
to prevent, detect and combat crime, and
to provide assistance and services to the public.

The police – whether perceived by the public as a service or as a force –
should play an essential role in protecting human rights. The police are
responsible for ensuring the security and safety of individuals through
enforcing the law; under international law, police officers are obliged to fully
respect human rights, but they are also obligated to protect human rights
against violations by other individuals. In essence, their key functions call
on them to be active agents for the enjoyment of human rights: a positive
understanding of the police’s role in this regard is important for fostering
the type of constructive dialogue between monitoring bodies and the
police that the preventive monitoring approach is premised on.
1	

Anneke Osse, Understanding Policing: a resource for human rights activists, Amnesty
International Nederlands, 2006, p.26. Available at http://www.amnesty.org.uk/uploads/
documents/doc_22360.pdf

2	

See, inter alia, ECPE, p.7. Available at https://wcd.coe.int/com.instranet.
InstraServlet?command=com.instranet.CmdBlobGet&InstranetImage=1277578&SecMo
de=1&DocId=212766&Usage=2.

4

Chapter I - Monitoring the Police in Context

While police officers have a duty to protect and respect individuals’ fundamental rights, their own rights should be respected and fulfilled on an
equal basis. Thus, while police officers may be responsible for human rights
violations, including ill-treatment, monitors should keep in mind that they
may be victims of abuses themselves. When this is the case, it often has a
major impact on the treatment of detainees. For instance, very poor material and working conditions are not only an infringement of police officers’
economic and social rights, but may increase corruption or contribute to
other behaviour detrimental to those in their custody. Monitors, in their
efforts to understand the root-causes of ill-treatment, including systemic
problems within police stations, should adopt a holistic strategy that takes
into consideration the needs and difficulties of the police. Dialogue between
monitors and the police about the problems that the police face may well
generate greater openness to criticism; thus, it often proves an important
diplomatic tool.

Monitoring the Police in Context

1.2. Police powers and risks for detainees
Independent scrutiny is particularly important as regards the police’s
•	
•	

mandate to maintain order, and
activities aimed at preventing, detecting and combating crime.

In order to comply with the police’s mandate, law enforcement officers are
provided with a series of powers, including the powers
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	

I

to stop people and request proof of identity,
to arrest people,
to conduct searches,
to monitor demonstrations,
to detain persons,
to interrogate persons,
to investigate, and
to use minimum force under certain conditions.

In carrying out these functions, there are risks of abuse of both persons and
police powers. Thus, proper and impartial monitoring of police conduct is
essential.
The lawful use of force is a legitimate function of the police because police
officers sometimes operate in a dangerous environment and are entitled to
5

Manual on Monitoring Police Custody

protect both the general public and themselves. However, wherever force is
used there is the potential for abuse, especially as the state – and, hence, the
police – is traditionally considered to have a monopoly over the legitimate
use of physical force.

Monitoring the Police in Context

I

Abuses by the police can occur for many reasons, not least because using
force in accordance with the principle of proportionality is not an easy task;
human rights violations may result from a flawed assessment of a given situation. Abuses can also occur when individual police officers take advantage
of their powers by exercising excessive force to intimidate, extort information or for other reasons. It can also be – and this is the most challenging
situation for monitors seeking to address torture or other ill-treatment
– because there is a culture of impunity in a given context: in such cases,
police officers who perpetrate human rights violations know that they will
not be prosecuted or disciplined.
In addition to the use of force, key risk areas include the way means of
restraint are used, how searches are conducted, and whether discriminatory
ethnic profiling is part of police culture.
The risks of abuse in police custody are particularly high during the first few
hours of detention: this is the time when detainees are most vulnerable and
when officials are under most pressure to secure information from them.
Safeguards, especially at the very early stages of detention, are crucial to
prevent abuses. Key safeguards include
•	
•	
•	
•	

giving detainees information on their rights,
providing access to a lawyer,
notifying family members and/or a third party of the person’s
detention, and
affording examination by a doctor (i) to confirm or exclude possible
allegations of ill-treatment and (ii) to provide medical assistance if
necessary.

Thus, in addition to helping to prevent abuses, built-in safeguards reduce
the risks of false allegations being made against the police.
In legal systems that rely heavily on confessions, individuals arrested by the
police are at even greater risk of torture and other ill-treatment. Confessionbased approaches pose a greater threat to detainees than does evidencebased policing, which relies on the painstaking gathering of evidence. This is
because confession-based approaches often indirectly encourage unlawful
6

Chapter I - Monitoring the Police in Context

practices and contribute to a culture of abuse within the police.
Moreover, the literature demonstrates that securing information through
ill-treatment often results in false confessions and, thus, delays effective
crime detection and prevention. Gathering evidence is rarely an easy task
as it often involves the step-by-step reconstruction of a sequence of events.
However, as a rule, the public have much greater confidence in the police,
and consequently view the institution’s work as having greater legitimacy,
in evidence-based judicial systems. For monitors willing to engage in a
holistic analysis of the root-causes of torture and other ill-treatment, the
overall framework of the legal system cannot be ignored (see Chapter II,
Part A, Section 1.1).

1.3. Persons in situations of vulnerability
The police have a key role to play in protecting and respecting individuals’ rights, especially as regards persons considered to be in situations of
vulnerability3 because of the interplay between their status in a particular
society and the social context in which they find themselves (e.g. children,
women, sexual minorities, disabled people and migrants). When members
of vulnerable groups are arrested and detained by the police, particular care
is required; steps may need to be taken to address their particular requirements and needs. For example, the police may need to make allowances
for physically disabled persons to keep their crutches at all times in order
to maintain their mobility, even when officers are concerned that this may
pose a risk to security.
3	

The APT understands vulnerability as being linked, in most cases, to a minority status that
increases the risks of stigmatisation and ill-treatment: thus, individuals may be vulnerable
in a given context and not in another. For example, women may be vulnerable both
because they represent a much lower percentage of the detained population around the
world and because the detaining authorities are most likely to be predominantly male;
for these reasons, female detainees face greater risks of discrimination and ill-treatment
while in detention.

7

I

Monitoring the Police in Context

In a state of emergency, the powers of the police may be extended and individual liberties limited, but this should only occur within the constitutional
framework and in full compliance with the principles of legality, necessity and proportionality. No exceptional circumstances, including public
emergency, may be invoked as a justification for torture. It is essential that
key safeguards, such as the right to habeas corpus and the prohibition on
holding persons in unofficial places of detention, are not suspended during
times of emergency as this is often when they are most necessary.

Manual on Monitoring Police Custody

In some countries it is common that, instead of protecting people in situations of vulnerability, the police participate in the prevailing stigmatisation
processes. For example, migrants and foreigners in xenophobic societies,
LGBTI4 populations in homophobic societies, and those with mental illness
or intellectual impairment in confession-led legal systems may be more at
risk of ill-treatment by the police; such persons should be given particular
attention by monitoring bodies.

Monitoring the Police in Context

I

The additional needs and protection required by socially marginalised
groups in no way implies that detainees representative of the ‘majority’
should be discriminated against; instead, reasonable adjustments should be
made to standard practices and/or structures in order to respect the rights
of detainees who would otherwise be disadvantaged or placed at risk.
Persons in police custody may be at risk of abuse from other detainees.
If detainees are brought to cells without previous risk assessment by the
police, it may result in fights, rapes, other types of violence or even death.
Racial and ethnic issues, as well as sexual orientation, are among the key
factors that contribute to violence in police cells. Police acquiescence in
detainees’ detrimental conduct to each other is unacceptable. Therefore,
monitors should pay particularly attention to situations in which the police
have, or might, ‘turn a blind eye’ to inter-detainee violence. It is the police’s
duty to ensure that there is no violence among detainees.
As far as persons with disabilities are concerned, the police must adapt to
their needs through instituting “reasonable accommodation”. According to
the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, reasonable
accommodation
means necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments not imposing a disproportionate or undue burden,
where needed in a particular case, to ensure to persons with
disabilities the enjoyment or exercise on an equal basis with
others of all human rights and fundamental freedoms. 5

Detention authorities are subject to the reasonable accommodation duty
whenever detainees with disabilities would, without accommodation, be
subjected to a disadvantage in relation to the standard facilities, structures,
regime or treatment within the relevant police stations or other places
under the police’s authority. In all cases in which this duty is not carried out,
4	

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender/transsexual and intersex persons.

5	

CRPD, Art. 2. Available at http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml

8

Chapter I - Monitoring the Police in Context

unlawful discrimination will have occurred. In some, though not all, such
cases, the level of suffering endured by the disabled person may even reach
the minimum level of severity to constitute a breach of the substantive
right to be free from ill-treatment. Where the police purposely discriminate
against disabled persons, such treatment may amount to torture or other
ill-treatment.

1.4. Police detention
In most jurisdictions, detention6 by the police is generally authorised for
two main purposes:
•	

Persons may also be detained in police custody
•	

•	

for their own safety. (For instance, children reported missing from
home and awaiting their parents or guardians, and persons with
mental health disorders awaiting examination by a doctor or
transfer to hospital. This is sometimes called protective detention.
People under the influence of alcohol, narcotics or other drugs may
also fall under this category.)8
pending an administrative decision. (For instance, irregular

6	

The terms ‘detention’, ‘arrest’ and ‘taken into custody’ will be used interchangeably.
However, unless otherwise indicated, the terms are intended to describe the period of
time from initial contact between the police and the person deprived of his or her liberty
until the detained person is released or transferred from police custody to the purview
of another body. Similarly, ‘apprehension’ and ‘arrest’ will be used interchangeably,
although ‘arrest’ may be understood in some of the legal documents referenced as
limited to criminal arrest.

7	

This may also include people who have been (i) remanded in custody in a pre-trial
detention facility to await trial or (ii) sentenced and detained in a prison but then
temporarily returned to police custody for further investigation into the crime with
which they have been charged or other crimes.

8	

It is not always the intention of the police to charge such individuals with an offence
against public order. In some cases, the police wait for the person to recover from their
intoxication and then let them go with a warning instead of charging them.

9

Monitoring the Police in Context

•	

I

to question individuals against whom there is reasonable suspicion
about offences they may have committed and/or to hold them
while other evidence is gathered that may substantiate a charge
against them. This is called pre-charge detention.
to safeguard the due process of justice by ensuring that persons
against whom charges have been laid appear before a court. This is
called post-charge detention.7

Manual on Monitoring Police Custody

migrants awaiting deportation. In some countries this is known as
administrative detention.)9
Other categories of detainees who may be found in police detention,
though they would usually be found in prison, include
•	
•	

Monitoring the Police in Context

I

•	

prisoners who have made court appearances and are awaiting trial.
This is called pre-trial detention.
convicted prisoners awaiting sentence. This is called pre-sentence
detention.
sentenced prisoners.10 This is known as punitive detention.

With the exception of establishments intended to hold pre-trial and presentence detainees, and those serving an administrative penalty, most
police stations are designed to hold detainees for short periods only for the
purposes of preliminary investigations. However, this ‘short period’ can vary
from a few hours to about a week; generally, the period is expected to allow
sufficient time for initial investigations as provided for by the laws of the
country concerned.11
However, in some countries detainees spend longer periods than is provided for by law in police custody; generally, this is due to a lack space in the
prison system. As police stations are rarely designed to hold detainees for
long periods of time, and police staff usually lack appropriate training, these
situations create high risks of ill-treatment and poor conditions of detention;
monitors should take care to address these issues fully. Inspecting material
conditions, their compliance with respect to international standards, and
the length of custody in settings designed for a short duration are an essential component of preventive visits.
This guide is intended to deal primarily with detainees who are being held
pre- or post-charge and those in protective or administrative detention.
Nonetheless, most of the content will also be relevant to the other types of
police detention.12
9	

This term should not be confused with the same term, used in other jurisdictions,
especially States of the former Soviet Union, where people found guilty of minor
offences, such as traffic violations, can be sentenced to short periods of detention in
police custody. It should be noted that in some jurisdictions the term can also be used to
describe other forms of police detention.

10	 In a very small minority of countries, the police also administer prisons.
11	 This document does not address illegal forms or places of detention. If monitors do find
such places, they must make clear that international standards apply to them too.
12	 Those engaged in monitoring prisons should bear in mind the generally acknowledged

10

Chapter I - Monitoring the Police in Context

1.5. Police corruption
When interviewing detainees or staff at places of detention, monitors
may receive allegations of corruption on the part of the police. It is
important to note that, to a greater or lesser extent, corruption exists in
some form or another in every police force/service in the world. Often,
corruption is linked to torture, other ill-treatment, and other human
rights violations. Corruption may take the form of illegal fees for services
that should be free of charge (e.g. receiving visits or seeing a doctor), or
it may give rise to privileges for certain detainees (e.g. the allocation
of a better cell in return for a bribe), to mention only two examples.
Persons deprived of their liberty are particularly vulnerable to corrupt
practices as they are not, in most cases, in a position to report these
or to defend themselves. Monitors should also take into account that
corrupt practices may be discriminatory (e.g. they may be prejudiced
against detainees with fewer economic means).

I

Monitoring the Police in Context

Depending on the nature and recurrence of allegations of corruption,
it may be proper and appropriate for monitors to explore these issues
further and to mention them in both their reports and dialogue with the
authorities. Moreover, the issue of corruption should be addressed in thematic reports analysing the functioning of the police at the national level.

2. The specificities of monitoring police
facilities
2.1. Monitoring the police: a broad understanding
For the purposes of this guide, the term ‘police station’ refers to a building or
a group of buildings from which police officers operate. It includes any area
(not just a cell or cells in the traditional sense) where persons are deprived
of their liberty for any period of time. It may also include administrative
offices and other quarters from which investigators or other units operate.
Thus, the term should be understood broadly; it should be taken to include
establishments operated by other law enforcement agencies performing a
principle that, except in cases of emergency, the police should not take on the role
of prison officers. See, for instance, ECPE, §11. Available at https://wcd.coe.int/com.
instranet.InstraServlet?command=com.instranet.CmdBlobGet&InstranetImage=127757
8&SecMode=1&DocId=212766&Usage=2.

11

Manual on Monitoring Police Custody

police function, such as border police premises, financial police units, and
intelligence agencies with law enforcement functions. These may differ
significantly from the types of facilities described in this manual. However,
similarities will be found with establishments operated by customs and
immigration departments and other comparable law enforcement bodies
with the authority to deprive people of their liberty.

Monitoring the Police in Context

I

It is not the purpose of this manual to describe the various types of institutions that perform police functions, such as gendarmeries, militsia, carabineros or guardia civil; instead, the focus is on the monitoring of the police,
whatever the terminology used to refer to them in any given country is.
It is crucial, however, not to consider ‘police stations’ to comprise mere
physical spaces, but to keep in mind, at all times, that from the moment of
arrest to that of release or transfer there is a risk of mistreatment. Therefore,
although for the sake of clarity and simplicity Chapter II of this manual is
dedicated to monitoring visits to police stations, monitors should not limit
themselves to physical spaces but should also include police conduct and
procedures in their analysis. Identity checks, apprehensions, police conduct
during demonstrations (such as containment of protesters, sometimes
known as ‘kettling’), personal searches, property searches, interrogations,
and other police activities will, in most cases, not be directly monitored
by visiting bodies as they fall outside the scope of visits to police facilities.
Nevertheless, these activities do present risks and monitors should collect
information about them. This information may be gathered during private
interviews with detainees in police stations, although it is often easier to
gather more detail about police conduct during retrospective interviews
with persons deprived of their liberty in prisons and those who have already
been released from custody.
The schematic below is not a precise representation of the detention process; rather, it presents a generic vision of key stages, risks and safeguards.

12

Chapter I - Monitoring the Police in Context

I

Monitoring the Police in Context

2.2. Interviews in private
Interviewing persons in police custody presents a range of challenges.
Detainees may be reluctant to talk openly to monitors for a variety of
reasons:
•	
•	
•	

•	

They may be under intense stress due to the uncertainty of their
case and the recentness of their arrest.
They may fear that they will suffer physical or mental reprisals, or
be otherwise sanctioned by the police, once monitors have left.
They may fear that collaborating with monitors may negatively
impact on decisions regarding their release or the progress of their
case.
They may fear being identified as the source of information,
particularly if there are other persons present at the time of the
interview.

For these reasons, monitors should consider whether they are more likely
to obtain information about the general way in which people are treated
in police stations from individuals who have already been transferred to
prisons or who have already been released from custody.
13

Manual on Monitoring Police Custody

Monitoring the Police in Context

I

Monitors should also be aware, when interviewing persons in police custody, that interviewees are vulnerable to sanctions and reprisals from police
personnel:13 as only a few people are usually held in a police station at any
one time, it may be easy to identify the source of monitors’ information.
The same issue arises when few interviews are conducted in more crowded
police stations. Therefore, while the visible presence of independent external
observers may be reassuring for very isolated detainees, private interviews
should always be treated with great care. Monitors should use an ‘all or nothing’ selection process: they should generally interview all of the detainees
held at the police station at the time of the visit or none at all. When the
risk of sanctions is deemed to be particularly high, monitors should consider
whether they should refrain from doing any interviews at all.14
11 It is more difficult to collect information during interviews
with persons held in police custody than with persons held in
prisons, due to detainees’ high levels of stress, fear, and uncertainty, and also the heightened risk of sanctions and reprisals.
Interviews should be carried out with caution. The safety of
detainees should take priority during visits to police stations
and must not be subordinated to the need/desire to collect
information. Monitors should weigh all decisions with respect to
the central principle of human rights monitoring: ‘do no harm’.

2.3. Key features of monitoring visits to police
stations
As a general principle, all visits to places under the authority of the police
should be unannounced. Whether this is achievable will depend on the
context as well as the mandate of the monitoring body concerned. The
value of unannounced visits is particularly clear for places like police stations, where risks of ill-treatment and removal of detainees are greater than
in other custodial settings. Police stations are usually relatively small places
with few detainees compared with prisons and a high turnover. Therefore,
the ‘surprise effect’ is particularly potent, especially in relation to the risk
that detainees will be removed prior to the visit if it is announced.
13	See Mitigating the Risks of Sanctions Related to Detention Monitoring (Detention
Monitoring Briefing N°4), APT, Geneva, January 2012. Available at http://www.apt.ch/
index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=1169:sanctions&Itemid=229&lang=en
14	See The Selection of Persons to Interview in the Context of Preventive Detention Monitoring
(Detention Monitoring Briefing N°2), APT, Geneva, April 2009. Available at http://www.apt.
ch/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=269&Itemid=259&lang=en

14

Chapter I - Monitoring the Police in Context

Monitoring bodies that visit police stations on a regular basis should endeavor,
as far as possible, to make their visits at different times of the day, week and
month. A visit to a police station on a Tuesday at 11am will be different to
one carried out at midnight on a weekend or during public holidays. At the
weekend and during public holidays, the overall situation at the police station
may be more tense, judges may not be available, and there may be both more
arrests taking place and a different number of officers on duty. Visits held outside working hours are often more challenging for monitors for reasons of
convenience and security. It is also possible that the police officers the team
is particularly keen to speak with will not be on duty at the time of the visit.

I

However, it is important to vary the timing of visits so that the routine of the
police station can be monitored and any unusual changes in routine can be
identified. For example, visits made at different times are often the best way
to identify problems such as

•	

there being no female officers on night shifts,
the medical room being kept locked with the keys not readily
accessible, or
the fact that the staff working night shifts have different attitudes
to detainees.

Finally, although police stations are generally relatively small, it is important for monitors to dedicate sufficient time for visits. Confidence-building
discussions with commanding officers and staff, interviews with detainees,
and/or unforeseen developments can all offer opportunities that may be
lost if the monitoring schedule is too inflexible.

3. Preventive monitoring: an analytical
framework
Effective preventive monitoring of police detention centres on regular and
unannounced visits to police facilities to gather firsthand information; this
information can then be used to identify and analyse factors that give rise
to, or fail to prevent, torture, ill-treatment and other affronts to human dignity in detention.
Although persons deprived of liberty are at the centre of the preventive monitoring process, the aim is to understand the functioning of police facilities as
systems rather than focusing purely on the situation of individuals who happen
to be detained during visits. Needless to say, if the situation of an individual or
15

Monitoring the Police in Context

•	
•	

Manual on Monitoring Police Custody

group causes particular concern, immediate action may be required; however,
the primary aim of visits should be to affect systemic change.
A key objective of preventive monitoring is to provide concrete recommendations, through constructive dialogue with the authorities,
•	
•	

to mitigate or eliminate risk factors, and
to propose preventive measures.

Such an approach is forward-looking and, over the long-term, will help to
create an environment in which the likelihood of torture is reduced.

Monitoring the Police in Context

I

When a preventive approach is taken, monitoring is not an end in itself. While
visits enable monitoring mechanisms to gather firsthand information, they
only constitute one of the many links in the chain of any holistic preventive
strategy. The bodies carrying out visits to police stations should go beyond
the facts found in specific establishments and try to identify possible root
causes of both problems and risks of torture and other ill-treatment. Often
problems encountered during a specific visit are the result of broader external
factors; for instance, overcrowding in police detention may be a symptom of a
slow and overloaded judicial system. Therefore, it is essential to look beyond
the findings of individual visits: monitors should also analyse the prevailing
legal framework, public policies, and the institutions and actors involved.

Legal framework
A clear understanding of the relevant legal framework is critical to monitors’ ability to conduct comprehensive analyses during and after specific
16

Chapter I - Monitoring the Police in Context

visits. Monitors should look particularly at domestic legislation, such as the
national criminal code, code of criminal procedure and law on police, as well
as any operational procedures governing police detention. The relevant
legal texts should be analysed to determine if they adequately integrate
international standards such as the CCLEO15 and the BPUFF.16 Issues such
as police powers to arrest, rights to legal aid and due process should also
be well understood. This is a particularly important requirement for bodies
operating under the OPCAT,17 which are mandated to make recommendations on draft and existing legislation.
Public policies

I

Public policies are important tools for addressing specific challenges in a
given society; they can increase or decrease risk factors for persons detained
by the police. The SPT, the international preventive mechanism established by
the OPCAT, describes its preventive approach as revolving around the need

•	

to “engage with the broader regulatory and policy frameworks
relevant to the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty and
with those responsible for them”, and
to explore “how these are translated into practice.”18

Monitoring the Police in Context

•	

The same can be said for national bodies in charge of monitoring the police.
Policies on crime, security, policing, juvenile justice, health, drug users,
migrants, homelessness and many other issues can impact on the risk of
torture and conditions of detention. Monitors should have a clear grasp of
which policies may have an impact, whether positively or negatively, in the
contexts in which they work. For instance, policies on crime, such as the use
of arrest quotas or ‘zero tolerance’ policies can result in a rise in arrests and,
consequently, overcrowding in pre-trial detention. Similarly, public policies
on rehabilitation for drug users can divert people out of the criminal justice
system and into public health institutions and processes.
It is important to note that some countries may have a policy to combat
torture and other ill-treatment, though this may not be enshrined in law. A
15	 Available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/codeofconduct.htm
16	 Available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/firearms.htm
17	 Available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cat-one.htm
18	 ‘The approach of the SPT to the concept of prevention of torture and other cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under the OPCAT’, UN Doc. CAT/
OP/12/6, 20 December 2010, Guiding principle 5(2). Available at http://www2.ohchr.org/
english/bodies/cat/opcat/ConceptPrevention.htm

17

Manual on Monitoring Police Custody

good understanding of public policies is therefore key to identifying possible risk factors and root causes of torture and other forms of ill-treatment,
and also practices that tend to mitigate such risks.
Key institutions and actors

Monitoring the Police in Context

I

Analysing key institutions and actors is paramount to the success of monitors’
work as it enhances their understanding not only of the police, but also of
the courts, legal aid institutions, civil society organisations working on police
detention issues, and other bodies that have oversight responsibilities. Police
stations form part of larger administrative entities attached to ministries that
define the orientation of government policies. Police leadership and the prevailing institutional culture (e.g. do the police think of themselves as part of a
force or a service? Is there an authoritarian or community policing approach?)
have a major impact on risk factors regarding torture and other ill-treatment.
Issues of internal structure and functioning, recruitment, training, promotion systems, capacity, oversight and complaints mechanisms, operational
plans, financial and other resources, and other dimensions should also be
analysed so that monitors can assess risk factors. For instance, an insufficient
supply of police vehicles may mean that persons held in police custody do
not arrive at their judicial hearings; this may result in prolonged pre-trial
detention, increasing the risk of overcrowding and, thus, detainees’ exposure to ill-treatment and poor conditions. In other contexts, private companies are contracted to transfer detainees from police to prison custody; if no
institutional checks are in place, detainees risk spending hours non-stop in
transfer vehicles as a result of cost-cutting by the contracting firm.
Monitoring bodies should pay special attention to the functioning of police
internal control mechanisms. Ideally, these should be at the vanguard
in responding to the first signs of a problem, working to ameliorate the
situation before it escalates. Analysing how internal control mechanisms
respond to problems can be very illuminating with regard to both obstacles
and advances in whether a culture of human rights is adopted by the institution as a whole.
The relationships between the police and other actors may impact on the
conditions and treatment of detainees. Exploring these can also help identify potential allies in working to achieve positive changes. The key question monitors should ask while carrying out analyses at this level is “What is
this institution doing to prevent torture?” It is vital to map any ‘structures of
impunity’: networks within and between institutions that enable torture to
be practised and go unpunished.
18

Chapter I - Monitoring the Police in Context

As police facilities may differ significantly, there are two key aspects to consider:
•	
•	

the management/administration of establishments, and
their actual functioning.

Administration and management
Although good administration is fundamental to protecting the rights of
detainees, the administration and management of police stations are often
overlooked by monitors. However, they have a direct influence on the attitudes and practices of staff and, thus, on the protection of detainees. Knowing how a police station is administered, and what systems and processes
are in place, is critical to developing a proper understanding of the broader
picture. For instance, in addition to nation-wide protocols and procedures
for running police stations, registers or mechanisms may be created by
the commander of a particular police station, or by staff, to deal with the
everyday challenges they face. For instance, the police may legitimately
have to limit the contact of suspects with outsiders for the purpose of an
investigation, but how this decision is taken and reviewed often varies from
one police station to another. Differences are often only discovered through
careful questioning: this may reveal examples of best practice or provide
information relevant to torture prevention. Before a monitoring visit, as
much as possible should be found out about the facility’s administrative
responsibilities, mechanisms, protocols and guidelines. During the visit,
their functioning, implementation and effectiveness should be analysed
and other ad hoc, station-specific measures assessed.

I

Analysing the functioning of police installations is principally carried out
during monitoring visits. Conducting an effective analysis is the main focus
of this manual (see especially Chapter II). Analyses should address what actually happens to detainees, how they are treated and under what conditions
they are detained, held, processed and released. It is common that regulations, registers and processes vary from one place to another. As such, it is
important to explore both how the police officers involved do their work in
practice and what challenges they face. Much of the data used in analyses is
gathered through interviewing
•	
•	
•	

currently and previously detained persons,
police officers working at operational and managerial levels, and
other relevant actors.
19

Monitoring the Police in Context

Functioning

Manual on Monitoring Police Custody

Specific cases of alleged abuse, problems of material conditions, and other
factors should be assessed and compared with relevant laws, public policies, and institutional and administrative arrangements. However, visits represent the most effective way to obtain hard evidence of
•	
•	
•	

how detention works in individual facilities,
where risks manifest, and
where human rights standards are not implemented effectively
and/or fully.

I

3.1. Basic principles for monitoring places of
detention

Monitoring the Police in Context

Monitoring places of detention through visits is a delicate and sensitive
task. For reasons concerning both ethics and efficiency, it is important
that those conducting visits keep in mind and respect the following
basic principles:19
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	

Do no harm!
Exercise good judgement.
Respect the authorities and the staff in charge.
Respect the persons deprived of liberty.
Be credible.
Respect confidentiality.
Respect security.
Be consistent, persistent and patient.
Be accurate and precise.
Be sensitive.
Be objective.
Behave with integrity.
Be visible.

19	 These principles were inspired by the eighteen basic principles of monitoring identified
in Chapter V of the UN Training Manual on Human Rights Monitoring (Professional
Training Series N°7), Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Geneva, 2001.
Available at http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/training7Introen.pdf. The
principles are discussed in more detail on pages 27-31 of Monitoring Places of Detention:
A practical guide, APT, Geneva, April 2004. Available at http://www.apt.ch/index.
php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=58&Itemid=259&lang=en

20

Chapter II
Visits to Police Stations

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

This chapter takes a closer look at how a typical monitoring visit to a police
station might be conducted. As discussed in Chapter I, monitoring visits
are only one component of a holistic preventive approach; nonetheless,
they represent the core element, allowing monitors to obtain firsthand
information on the reality of the situation in individual police stations.
Chapter II introduces the three main stages, each equally important, of the
monitoring process: preparing for a visit, conducting a visit and following
up on a visit. Part B, which focuses on conducting visits, encompasses
most contexts, but monitors should strive to be flexible, adapting to the
specificities of the places they visit.

Part A. Preparing for a visit

Visits to Police Stations

II

The monitoring process begins before the visiting team arrives at the
entrance to the police station. The team will not carry out an effective
visit unless it has prepared properly. Preparation may be lengthy or short,
depending on the specific objectives of the visit and on the level of
experience of the team; in either case, preparation should be thorough.
There are four key phases in preparing for a visit:
1.	
2.	
3.	
4.	

research and information gathering,
operational preparation,
material preparation, and
mental preparation.

1. Research and information gathering
Before embarking on any monitoring visit, the team should ensure that
every member possesses the same information and all are fully briefed.

1.1. Laws and regulations
As outlined in Chapter I, the first stage of preparation involves research to
develop an understanding of the laws and regulations relating to detention
by the police in the facility to be visited. To be fully effective, the team
should understand the basic facts of
•	

22

the national police code of conduct (if any) and other rules of police
procedure,

Chapter II - Visits to Police Stations

•	
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	

the rights of detained persons,
the organisation and structures of the police and other law
enforcement bodies that the team is monitoring,
the powers the police have to detain people,
the length of time the police are empowered to detain people,
the procedures for when someone is first detained and arrives at a
police station, and
the procedures in use, and regulations relating to, questioning by
the police.

It is also essential that the team is well-versed in all relevant universal and
regional standards (see Chapter III). By the same token, monitors should
have sufficient knowledge of specific protections accorded to particular
categories of persons, including women, migrants awaiting asylum
decisions, minors, persons with disabilities, religious or ethnic minorities,
and other groups in situations of vulnerability.

1.2. Registers
The visiting team should be familiar with the types of registers and
other documents used to record the personal details, and other related
information, of persons detained by the police (see Chapter II, Part B,
Section 4 below). Monitors should keep in mind that a variety of registers
may be found in police stations and that there may be significant differences
between police stations or even within a specific installation. Therefore, the
team should know which registers and documents the police are obliged by
law or internal regulation to keep. They should also be aware of those that
have been observed on previous visits but are not required by legislation or
regulation

II

1.3. Relevant information
Preparatory research should encompass all available internal and external
information on the establishment to be visited, including details of any
specific problems or allegations that have come to notice either since the
last visit or in the previous weeks and months if this is the first visit carried
out by the monitoring body. Useful sources of information include reports
and recommendations from the media, NGOs, universal or regional bodies
23

Visits to Police Stations

11 See Chapter III, Section 2.9

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

(in particular recommendations made to the authorities), and the official
reports the visiting team has access to. Careful notes should be made of
patterns of abuse, particular locations within the establishment where
ill-treatment is alleged to have taken place, the methods of ill-treatment
allegedly used and, if the alleged ill-treatment is physical, the types of
instruments or implements utilised. This is especially important when the
instruments are apparently innocuous or the ways in which they are used
are not immediately obvious; for example, gas masks or high pressure water
hoses may be utilised to ill-treat detainees. Being aware of existing or prior
issues in advance will help the team to be alert to their presence when
visiting the police station. If psychological methods of ill-treatment are
employed, the team should also be prepared to look for areas where solitary
confinement may be used, for instance, or where deprivation of light/other
sensory deprivation may be imposed.
The analysis should not be limited to the specific place visited but should
also include general information on possible patterns of police abuses.
Monitors will then be able to verify whether such fault lines are also present
in the particular place they are visiting and/or whether there are factors in
play that mitigate against them.

II

If monitors can access to them, complaints, whether directly received by
the monitoring body or by an ombudsman or similar structure, will also
constitute an important source of pre-visit information.

Visits to Police Stations

1.4. Contacts with external sources
Preparatory research should ideally not be restricted to a passive reading
of reports. It can be very useful to meet with other actors, such as NGOs,
lawyers who represent detainees, relatives, members of internal affairs
and professional standards units, hospital staff, judges, community
police forums and medical practitioners who may have had dealings with
detainees. Anyone who has regular dealings with the police may have
useful information.

1.5. Management structures
It will also be useful to be aware, to the extent possible, of the identities of
the commander and senior officers of the police station the team intends
to visit, and of other senior officers in the region, in order be in a position
to develop constructive relationships with them. Policing is normally fairly
hierarchical, and lower level officers will want reassurance that the visiting
24

Chapter II - Visits to Police Stations

team has established its credentials with superior officers.
This knowledge also will help in resolving any difficulties that may be
encountered, such as a lack of co-operation or a failure to implement
recommendations. Keeping up to date with the turnover of personnel at
a senior level can also be helpful, as these changes may result in shifts in
outlook among the police who deal with detainees in a particular facility. For
example, a new commander’s ‘robust’ attitude towards crime and criminals,
transmitted to his or her staff, may manifest in an increase in allegations of
ill-treatment.

2. Operational preparation
There is no such thing as a routine visit. Each and every visit should be
planned carefully. The presence of the monitoring team will not be routine
for those detained in the police station or for the police officers who work
there, no matter how often and regularly the team visits. If the current visit
is regarded as routine by monitors, there is a very good chance that they will
miss something important.

2.1. Purpose of the visit

2.2. Composition of the visiting team
The objectives, the size of the police station and the human resources
available within each visiting mechanism will, to a large extent, determine
the number of monitors involved in each visit, though members’ availability
will also need to be considered. Teams should generally consist of no fewer
than two people: teams should be large enough to achieve the visits’ key
25

II

Visits to Police Stations

The visiting team should decide in advance on the purpose of the visit. Will
the team carry out an in-depth visit of the detention facilities and engage
in a general information gathering exercise? Will they focus on a specific
theme to be explored across a series of police stations? A thematic visit,
for example, might examine the extent to which detainees are notified of
their rights or how children’s rights are respected. Equally, the team might
be carrying out a follow-up visit to ascertain if recommendations made
on a previous occasion have been implemented. The objective of the visit
might even be to verify information gathered during visits to other places
of detention, such as prisons. The purpose of the visit will govern how the
team proceeds and should be specifically defined beforehand.

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

objectives within the allotted time. However, there should not be too many
monitors in the team either. Police stations and the parts of them to which
monitors will probably require access are, in general, relatively small. A large
group of strangers walking around can be overwhelming and intimidating,
as well as unnecessarily disruptive, for police officers and detainees alike.
Furthermore, unless roles are clearly defined and adhered to, monitors can
make their own work more difficult.
At the same time, teams should represent a range of expertise in order to
secure the cooperation of both detainees and policing staff. This requires
that the composition of the team be as diverse and multidisciplinary as
possible. The visit objectives also will influence the composition of the team;
for example, if one of the objectives is to analyse the provision of medical
treatment, the presence of a doctor will be essential.1 Similarly, if there is
a reasonable likelihood of encountering detainees (or police officers) of a
particular ethnicity, or who speak a minority language, someone from the
same ethnicity or who speaks the same language should be part of the
team. It is also always advisable to include both male and female monitors;
this is essential if detainees of both sexes are likely to be encountered.

II

Roles and responsibilities within the team should be defined in advance. In
particular, a team leader should be appointed to take responsibility for the
organisation of the visit. The leader should act as a spokesperson, making
the introductions to the station commander and leading the discussions
with him or her at the beginning and end of the visit.

Visits to Police Stations

2.3. Logistical matters
Due consideration should be given to logistical matters; if the team leader
is not in charge of coordinating them, another team member should be
1	

26

The presence of a doctor is always beneficial; it allows (i) for the immediate examination
of anyone found to be suffering from physical or mental trauma and (ii) for the team
to develop a detailed understanding of any healthcare systems in place. When
monitoring bodies do not have doctors among their members, one option is to
organise training about how they might examine medical and health issues without
professional expertise. However, this would in no way fully compensate for the lack
of a doctor on the team. See Visiting Places of Detention: What role for physicians and
other health professionals?, APT, Geneva, 2008. Available at http://www.apt.ch/index.
php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=121&Itemid=259&lang=en. NB: Police
stations are generally not expected to hold medical files/registers since these should be
confidential and not seen by police officers. However, in some systems, there are medical
files in police stations: in such cases, the files should be held by police employees with
some medical training.

Chapter II - Visits to Police Stations

explicitly appointed to this role. This will include arranging transport, food
and accommodation, if necessary. A particular visit might be part of a
broader mission including a series of visits to several places of detention in
the same region, which would increase the length of the mission and the
logistical burden.
In case prior notice of the visit is given, a team member (the team leader or
another specifically designated monitor) should ensure that the information
is properly delivered to the appropriate person(s).

2.4. Points of contact
Wherever possible, it is useful for monitors to have a point of contact in a
senior position within the relevant institution or ministry; this contact can be
referred to, ideally with the contact’s prior agreement, should there be any
problems. For instance, if the team encounters difficulties in gaining access
to the police station, the monitors can telephone the point of contact to
ask him or her to authorise entry directly. This may well make the difference
between a visit proceeding as planned or the opportunity being lost.

3. Material preparation

II

3.1. Dress code

Visits to Police Stations

Managing perceptions is hugely important in detention monitoring;
monitors should pay special attention to avoiding the possibility that
others will develop erroneous or unhelpful perceptions of them as these
perceptions might undermine monitors’ effectiveness.
The question of ‘correct’ dress code has cultural implications and entails
many potential pitfalls. There is no golden rule that applies in every country
or in every situation. It is important to project an image of authority,
professionalism and independence: dress code is often particularly
important to monitors’ key interlocutors, for whom it will have significant
implications. Thus, monitors will be taken more seriously if they take the
trouble to dress appropriately and in accordance with the context of the
police station visited.
Understandably, given the poor conditions found in places of detention in
many countries, monitors may favour a more casual style of dress, especially
if the visit is to take place in the summer or in hot and humid conditions.
27

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

However, image and perception are important; these factors are especially
important for the police, who stress their image and status through their
uniforms and badges of rank. Even for officers who wear ‘plain clothes’, rank
is often indicated and ascertained by manner of dress; the higher the rank,
the more formal the style of dress.
Several issues may arise regarding the wearing or display of jewellery.
For obvious reasons, it is not appropriate for detention visitors to be
ostentatiously dressed or bejewelled. Moreover, it gives the police a reason
to object to a visit on grounds of the risk posed to both the visitor wearing
the jewellery and his or her belongings. Finally, there are often cultural
issues to be considered. The wearing of jewellery, whether by men or
women, should be given careful consideration.
Monitoring bodies whose members wear a special uniform (e.g. some NPMs
wear special shirts, badges or any other symbols of identification) should
ensure that their uniform and symbols do not appear too militaristic and
that they cannot be easily confused with other state institutions; in other
words, monitoring bodies must take care to signify their independence and,
thus, legitimacy.

Visits to Police Stations

II

3.2. Documentation and equipment
It is also important to ensure that the visiting team brings the proper
equipment, personal IDs, and copies of all the necessary credentials,
permissions and identification documents to carry out the visit; these may
include letters of authority from the relevant ministry or the Chief of Police,
a copy of the law granting access to the visiting body, and any relevant
recent correspondence with staff in the establishment being visited. All
appropriate documentation should be brought to every visit, even if the
police station in question is visited on a regular basis.2

4. Mental Preparation
All aspects of a visit must be given careful thought prior to arrival at the
police station to be visited. This includes even the simplest of tasks that
in other areas of daily life are done automatically, without any conscious
2	 The equipment that will be useful during a specific visit will very much depend
on the particular context, objectives and terms of the visit, but might include the
following items: a copy of the team’s credentials, a checklist of issues to be examined,
a questionnaire to be used when interviewing detainees, a pen and notebook, a tape
measure, a thermometer, and a torch.

28

Chapter II - Visits to Police Stations

decision-making process. It is necessary for monitors to take time to think
about their attitudes and the attitudes of the police who will receive them.
It is important to project an image that facilitates the work to be done by
always keeping in mind the following factors:
•	

Monitors’ activities, by their very nature, are highly intrusive; they
intrude into areas and places that are rarely, if ever, subject to any
other form of independent scrutiny. This is especially so in the
domain of the police where secrecy, sometimes of necessity, and
a suspicion of outsiders is often part of the culture. As a result, the
arrival of the visiting team is likely to be treated warily. Even if the
establishment to be visited is properly administered, with not a
hint of ill-treatment, and the rights of detainees are scrupulously
maintained, the welcome is unlikely to be enthusiastic. That said,
monitors should not assume that the police will be adversarial or
suspicious as this might, in itself, give rise to an unhealthy dynamic.

•	

Monitoring visits will not be considered routine by the police.
The unexpected arrival of monitors who can speak with
detainees, examine records, inspect material conditions, and
spend considerable time doing so may, at the least, be seen as an
inconvenience. Officers, including senior officers, will be required
to interrupt their activities to attend to the monitors – or at least
they will feel that they have to do so.
If a new establishment is being visited, or a new team of visitors
is involved, it may be worthwhile for the team to hold a detailed
discussion, in advance of the visit, about possible problems and
how they might be resolved. There is even an argument for using
role-playing activities to facilitate discussions about how the team
should respond to incivility, outright obstruction, or attempts
to ‘co-opt’ the delegation’s visit with excessive helpfulness. The
delegation should agree a policy, in advance, about how to truncate
a visit if any member of the team feels that this is necessary; such
sensitive discussions cannot easily occur in the presence of either
detainees or supervising authorities, so decisions about how to
handle such eventualities should be made in advance.

•	

Monitors must learn to project a sense of authority and confidence
in their relationships with the police. The police are accustomed
to being in charge and exercising power. Police staff belong to an
inherently hierarchical institution and routinely defer to senior
29

Visits to Police Stations

•	

II

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

officers. With the public, they are used to taking the initiative and
being deferred to. During visits monitors must be in charge and
take the initiative, without being led by the police; they must assert
themselves and their mandate, despite being in ‘police territory’.
During preparations, the team might wish to share ideas about
how to establish their autonomy and assert their independence
without being seen as aggressive or hostile.
•	

Finally, it is important that monitors keep an open mind and that
they are permanently alert.

Part B. Conducting a visit
Usually, regular visits to places of detention, including police stations, are
carried out in a logical order. This order includes the following steps, some
of which are sequentially interchangeable depending on the objectives of
the visit:
•	
•	
•	
•	

II

Visits to Police Stations

•	

Arrival and initial talk with the head of the police station.
Tour of the premises.
Interviews with detainees and staff.
Checking the custody registers, other registers and other
documents.
Final talk with the head of the facility.

Below, each stage is described in detail. However, monitors should not take
this sequence as a rigid model and should always be prepared to be flexible;
it is important to react to whatever situation is found during a visit, changing
plans and the usual order of activities if necessary.

1. Arriving at the police station
1.1. Arriving together
A visit should not start, other than in exceptional circumstances, until all the
monitors have arrived. On the day of the monitoring visit, monitors should
arrive at the police station together. Arriving separately, at intervals, gives
advance warning of the visit, which is not desirable. It also undermines the
team’s credibility, efficiency and authority.
30

Chapter II - Visits to Police Stations

1.2. First contact
The first contact between the visiting team and the police is extremely
important. During the first few minutes, monitors will influence what the
police think of them and, more importantly, how the police will behave
towards them.
Having arrived with the entire team at the entrance to the police station, the
nominated leader or spokesperson should be ready to produce the team’s
credentials and explain to the officer(s) guarding the entrance (or front desk)
which monitoring body the team represents, the purpose of the visit and
the fact that they wish to speak immediately with the person in charge. All
other members of the group should have their credentials at hand and be
able to produce them on request.

1.3. Delays and obstruction
Having presented their credentials, the visiting team will, in the vast majority
of instances, be allowed past the guards and directed or escorted to the
reception desk. Once there, or if the team has accessed the desk directly
because there are no guards, the monitors will probably be asked to wait
until a senior officer is called to receive them. In many cases, the delay will
be minimal and acceptable; however, the team should be prepared to
experience some initial delay when waiting for a particularly busy guard or
reception officer to attend them.

II

Monitors must remember that the police in every country comprise a
disciplined organisation with a clear rank structure. Even the most modern
police services still retain, of necessity, uniforms and badges of rank.
Discipline and obedience to authority are the norm. The use of individual
discretion is often actively discouraged. As a result, if a junior officer is given
an order not to allow monitors to enter the police station until the head of
the place has been informed of their presence and has arrived to meet them,
then the officer will refuse the visiting team entry. Manifesting anger in these
circumstances will achieve little, except perhaps a loss of face; moreover, it
will inevitably sour the atmosphere when access is finally granted.
31

Visits to Police Stations

Occasionally, monitors may be faced with lengthy and unacceptable delays.
They may meet with clear obstruction or an outright refusal to grant access.
In such cases, monitors should be aware that the officer concerned may not
be acting on his or her own initiative. It may well be that he or she is merely
following orders, or what he or she thinks are the relevant orders.

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

It is, however, proper and even important in such circumstances that the
team leader is firm in declaring that the team will not accept the situation.
•	

•	

•	

•	

II

Visits to Police Stations

•	

The team leader should ask for the name of the officer he or she is
dealing with. However, this should not be done with any hint of menace
or threat. Instead, this step should be treated as a way of establishing at
least a basic rapport with the individual in question. If he or she refuses
to give his or her name, it is unwise to press the matter. If successful,
it is worth trying to start a conversation in order to use the time to
establish a rapport. The officer may develop a favourable impression
of the team and be willing to assist during the next visit.
An attempt should be made to ascertain whether the officer is refusing
access because of a specific order to that effect or if, in the absence of
a contrary order, he or she assumes that entry must be denied.
In the former case, the team leader should ask for the identity of the
officer responsible and ask to speak with him or her immediately,
either in person or on the telephone.
In either instance, the team leader should ask to speak with a more
senior officer immediately. Avoiding loss of face is often important
(though the best methods for achieving this often vary across
cultural settings) so delegations should insist on their rights to
visit while, simultaneously, trying not to embarrass those officers
initially unaware of the monitoring team’s authority.
The team leader should point out, politely and calmly, that the
refusal to grant access is a very serious matter and that it will
be taken up with the appropriate senior officer at the police
headquarters or the relevant ministry.

If this approach is not successful, and there are no signs that the team will
shortly be granted access, then the monitors may wish to telephone a senior
officer themselves. As discussed above (see Part A, Sections 1.5 and Section
2.4), knowing the management structure and the identities of the senior
officers, or having pre-established a senior point of contact, can be useful in
seeking to resolve such difficulties.
When the monitors do meet the station commander or the officer who
issued the instruction to refuse entry, the team leader should make a firm
but polite protest. If appropriate (i.e. if the monitoring body is an NPM or if
it has a Memorandum of Understanding granting access to police stations),
the team leader should also point out that refusing access represents a
breach of the visiting body’s mandate. In due course, the monitors should
32

Chapter II - Visits to Police Stations

also take the matter up with the appropriate authorities as identified in the
instrument governing the monitors’ work. In order to pursue the issue later,
it is helpful, though not always possible, to identify the officers involved (by
name, ID number, or duty rota).When gathering such information, monitors
should be as clear as possible about how the information will be used,
including if it will be used in a complaint to higher authorities. Although
this may hamper the development of a rapport between the monitoring
team and the police staff involved, it is important for the monitoring body
to demonstrate a commitment to transparency.

1.4. Preventing the removal of detainees
If monitors suspect that their arrival may result in an attempt to remove
detainees, either before the team is allowed access or while the team is
with the commander, it is worth considering (assuming that the team is big
enough) whether one or two members of the team should stay outside, at
the side and/or rear entrances of the police station, to prevent removals or at
least document them. Once the rest of the team have successfully negotiated
entry and are satisfied that the situation inside has been contained, the
‘observers’ can join them by means previously agreed (usually, a telephone
call to arrange to meet at the front entrance).

In any case, monitors should keep in mind that an unreasonably lengthy
delay in granting access might result from attempts to conceal the removal
of detainees or to hide police misconduct. If there is a pattern of such
concealment, it is often possible to discover some basic details during
interviews with detainees, whether conducted
•	
•	
•	
3	

in the police station with current detainees,
at a later stage in a prison with persons formerly detained at the
relevant police station, or
at a later stage with persons who were detained at the facility but
have been released.3

The ‘do no harm’ principle should serve as an ethical compass during the entire visit.

33

II

Visits to Police Stations

Such manoeuvres must be undertaken discretely. Moreover, as these
procedures may seriously undermine constructive dialogue with the
detaining authorities, they should be used only if there are strong grounds
for suspecting that detainees will be removed from the police station to
ensure they are not seen by the monitors. Another option is for monitors to
carry out the visit as planned, imply that they have finished, and then return
an hour or two later to see if the ‘missing’ detainees have been returned.

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

However, in many countries such conduct on the part of the police will be
unknown or rare. In all cases where it is suspected, while monitors must not
fear to act, they should do so only on the grounds of reasonable suspicion.
Moreover, they should strive to deal with the issue tactfully and discretely.
This is an area where the potential for relationships between police and
monitors to break down is high.

1.5. Triangulating information
Preventive monitoring requires the triangulation of all relevant, available
information in order to arrive at a clear understanding of the prevailing
situation, and especially the main risks of torture and other ill-treatment, in
a specific place of detention. No information should be taken at face value.
Moreover, a variety of activities should be carried out during visits in order
to get as clear a picture as possible. The information received from police
officers, registers and interviews with detainees should all be compared to
identify areas of agreement and/or disparity.

Visits to Police Stations

II

For example, if police officers cite a particular regulation, monitors
should ask to see a copy. They should then check with detainees to see
if the established procedures are followed. Similarly, if monitors are
informed that certain cells are not in use, they should seek evidence
to the contrary by looking for food leftovers, clothes or other
signs of recent occupancy. Monitors can also ask other detainees
about the cell or ask various police officers the same questions to
see if their answers are consistent. Monitors must be creative and
34

Chapter II - Visits to Police Stations

persistent, cross-checking information about what happens and
how things function in the installation. This also means that if
the monitoring team divides up during the visit they should meet
periodically to exchange and cross-check information.
Monitors’ own observations are crucial; observing what happens
in a place of detention is an essential aspect of collecting reliable
information to triangulate and cross-check with other types of data.
Observation must entail more than a passive examination of material
conditions: it should involve a proactive approach to gathering
empirical evidence centred on illuminating the details of key processes
(e.g. as family visits or the distribution of food).
Monitors should make good use of all their senses throughout visits:
what they hear, see, smell, taste and touch should form a significant
component of their overall analysis. They should be alert throughout
visits, including to information and/or signs that can be seen but are
often not noted, such as body language, silences during interviews,
persons trying to avoid contact with monitors, people being eager
to talk, group dynamics, the way detainees interact with police staff,
how noisy different areas are, and the attitudes of staff.

II

Monitors should also be sensitive to how material conditions change
at different times; for instance, visiting in the daytime does not
necessarily reveal issues concerning lighting and/or heating that may
only be obvious at night-time.

The initial meeting with the station commander is an important part of
the visit. It gives monitors an opportunity both to explain their work and
methodology and to establish the basis for constructive, on-going dialogue
that will facilitate long-term prevention. Therefore, this should not be
regarded as a routine task to be rushed through so that monitors can get
on with the ‘real’ business of inspecting detention facilities and speaking
with detainees. This meeting is as important as all the other components
of the visit and can have significant long-term benefits. However, monitors
should note that the station commander might try to use the initial talk
as a promotional exercise (e.g. by giving a long presentation, including a
slideshow, or offering an invitation to lunch) to the detriment of the visit.
35

Visits to Police Stations

2. Initial talk with the head of the police station

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

There are different ways of handling the first encounter. If monitors are
pressed for time they may, after the preliminary introductions are over, split
up, leaving the team leader to carry on discussions while the remainder of
the team start the operational tasks. Alternatively, instead of splitting up, the
visiting team could suggest that all the monitors carry on with the visit and
then meet with the station commander again later for further discussions.
When the visit is part of a regular series by an NPM or other monitoring
body, this is more likely to be considered normal practice and often proves
an efficient use of time. In general, it is good practice that the leader of
monitoring team holds the initial talk with the head of the police station and
that other members of the monitoring team do not even sit down in order
to make clear that they are going to start the visit directly.

2.1. Objectives of the initial talk
2.1.1. Introducing the monitoring body’s mandate and the
methodology of the visit

Visits to Police Stations

II

The station commander may not be familiar with what is expected from him
or her during a monitoring visit. Monitors should explain carefully what they
intend to do and their requirements for doing it. If this is the first visit to a
particular police station, or if the commander has not had dealings with the
monitoring organisation before, a brief explanation of the body’s mandate
and powers is essential. It is also useful to repeat this basic information
in subsequent encounters. Particular emphasis should be placed on the
right of the visiting team to interview detainees (and others) in private (see
Chapter II, Part B, Section 5) since this is often a key cause of disagreement
on the part of station commanders. Thus, this right should be clarified at the
very beginning of the visit.
The team leader should also introduce all the members of the visiting
team by name, identifying their area(s) of relevant specialist expertise and/
or experience. Interpreters should be introduced as such. If necessary,
credentials should be shown again.
Finally, monitors should request another meeting with the commander at
the end of the visit to discuss preliminary findings and/or to formally end the
visit. Ideally, monitors should indicate how long they expect the visit to last.
2.1.2. Relationship building
Monitors should project confidence, authority and professional expertise to
36

Chapter II - Visits to Police Stations

gain the compliance of the station commander. However, they must also try
to build a positive relationship that will facilitate constructive dialogue. This
requires excellent interpersonal and diplomatic skills, patience and humility,
no matter what the commander’s attitude.
During visits it is important to enquire about the living and working
conditions of the police themselves and the difficulties they face in their
work. Sometimes police officers’ working conditions have an immediate
(often negative) impact on the treatment of detainees; therefore,
understanding these conditions is directly relevant to monitoring bodies’
mandates. Indirectly, this concern may also help to gain the confidence of
the commander:4 indeed, these aspects of monitors’ reports can be useful
sources of support for commanders’ efforts to improve police conditions.
Monitors should also stress that they are in no way hostile towards the police
and, in fact, their work is a useful and effective way of preventing malicious
and unfounded allegations against police officers. Co-operation is the best
way forwards for both sides and this should be underscored.5
2.1.3. Obtaining the necessary information
If the visit is the first one to be conducted at a particular police station, it
will be important to discuss most, if not all, of the following basic issues:5
•	
•	

•	

•	

the station’s capacity and resources,
the number of staff (disaggregated by gender, rank, ethnicity
and other factors relevant to the context),
the ranks, responsibilities and possibly names of principal
police personnel,
the number of female staff on duty not just at the time of the
visit but at all times of the day and night, including during
weekends and public holidays,
the length and timing of shifts (this is important as staff who
work long hours may become exhausted and stressed, which
can lead to things going wrong),

Visits to Police Stations

•	

II

4	 Questions about working conditions should also be put to other police officers
encountered during the visit, especially those working in the detention area; the answers
given may differ from those given by the station commander.
5	

At this stage, monitors should also enquire who else might provide them with useful
information or assistance during the visit.

37

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

•	
•	
•	

•	
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	

II

•	
•	

Visits to Police Stations

•	

the number and types of persons currently and recently held
in custody,
the specific challenges encountered in relation to current or
recent detainees,
the number of cells and details of what types of detainee are
held in each (special attention should be paid to whether men,
women and minors are separated, and how special cases (such as
persons with disabilities or special needs) are accommodated),
what happens when all the cells are full,
what facilities exist for interrogating detainees,
what oversight mechanisms exist to monitor interrogations as
they happen,
the procedures for when a detainee requires medical attention
and the details of a recent case in which this happened,
the main types of register used to record detainees’ information
and who is responsible for them,
the way complaints are recorded,
who is in charge of the cells (there may be a separate custody
officer and separate custody register),
the nature of any incidents encountered with current or recent
detainees,
the main challenges faced in running the installation and any
successes and difficulties in overcoming them, and
recent challenges faced by the staff.

On follow-up visits, monitors should enquire about
•	
•	
•	

38

the progress made since the last visit,
whether and how challenges have been dealt with, and
what new challenges have emerged.

Chapter II - Visits to Police Stations

3. Overview of the premises
When monitors are ready to begin the operational part of the visit and start
the overview of the facility, they should ask to be taken to the detention area
and/or other parts of the police station they wish to visit. Depending on the
size of the establishment, and the size of the team, monitors may choose
to split into groups. It is often useful, circumstances permitting, to see as
much of the police station as possible (including such seemingly irrelevant
parts as toilets and storage rooms) at the beginning of the visit and then
identify which areas will be the subject of further scrutiny. There may be
occasions when monitors choose not to give advance notice that they wish
to visit rooms located outside the detention area. For example, if they have
information that weapons or other implements reportedly used to torture
or otherwise ill-treat detainees are kept in a particular office, monitors may
choose to go there immediately; alternatively, they may only express a
desire to go there at the very last moment in the hope that this will reduce
the likelihood of implements being removed or hidden.
At this stage, monitors may also indicate any category of staff that they
wish to speak with in addition to those responsible for the detention area.
For example, they might decide to speak to criminal investigators, custody
officers, officers in charge of juveniles, or drug squad officers, depending on
the objectives of the visit. It is important for monitors to try to disrupt the
day-to-day work of the police as little as possible.

II

39

Visits to Police Stations

Depending on the number of detainees in custody, and the size of the group
visiting the cell area, the monitoring team may wish to split up further; for
example, one or two members could examine the custody register, while
others could inspect the cells and speak with detainees. It is often sensible
to examine the register thoroughly (and any record of complaints) before
proceeding to the cells as information gathered during these preparatory
activities may help monitors to target or prioritise where they go and who
they speak with. The size of the team, and the amount of time available, will
inevitably influence how monitors proceed.

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

Accompaniment by the police
Ideally, monitors should conduct visits without being accompanied by
the police in order to show detainees their independence from the
authorities. In practice, however, monitors are often accompanied
by the police, both for practical and safety reasons. Following the
initial talk, the head of the police station may seek to accompany the
monitors; the team leader or spokesperson should attempt to dissuade
him or her from doing so. In many contexts, being accompanied
by the head of the police station may undermine the monitoring
body’s ability to establish a rapport with detainees. Nevertheless, if
the station commander insists on being present monitors have no
authority to prevent this, other than when interviewing detainees.
If monitors are surrounded by the police throughout the entire visit,
it is crucial that they identify strategies and good practice measures
to distance themselves from the police institution: in such situations,
special care must be taken to promote detainees’ perception of the
team as credible, legitimate and independent.

II

The physical layout of police stations differs significantly both within and
between countries, but some basic characteristics and areas (detailed
below) are common to most facilities.

Visits to Police Stations

Reception area
The way visitors are received when arriving at the police station, and the
setting of the reception area itself, are very useful indicators of the overall
atmosphere and functioning of the facility. There may be a reception desk
at which the officer in charge will receive detained persons who arrive at the
police station; he or she will usually obtain personal details and an account
of the circumstances leading to arrest. Detained persons will usually be
searched here; if so, their personal effects will be laid out on a desk so that
a list can be made and signed for in a register. It is possible that monitors
will find persons detained in the reception area itself. There might also be a
separate room nearby for conducting searches, photographing detainees,
taking fingerprints, and checking identification documents.
Holding area
This may be a ‘cage’ or a large cell where persons waiting to be processed,
and those awaiting transfer to court or to interrogation rooms, are held
40

Chapter II - Visits to Police Stations

for short periods. Usually the holding area is within sight of the officer in
charge. If the police station is adjacent to a court building, there may be cells
dedicated to holding people waiting to appear in court; in some countries,
these cells may be in the court building and linked to the police station by
a tunnel. Furthermore, the guards attending these cells may not be police
officers but prison staff or even private security personnel.
Medical room
There may be a room where detainees can be examined by a doctor
or medical assistant. There may also be a space where apparatus for
administering blood alcohol tests to drivers suspected of being under the
influence of alcohol are kept and operated, though this is not usually a
separate room.
Interview rooms
These are rooms where detainees are questioned by investigators. They may
be located within the detention area or in other parts of the building. Some
police stations have designated interviews rooms, equipped with recording
devices; in others, ordinary offices (such as those used by investigators) may
be used for interviews. Monitors should keep in mind that interviews may
also be held in rooms not officially designated for that purpose; this is often
the case when abusive interview methods are employed. Visiting teams
should be alert to this possibility.

II

11 See Chapter III, Section 2.6

Detention area
Often a substantial part of visits is spent in the detention area containing
the cells. This area will frequently be located on the ground floor or in
basement; it may have a separate entrance, away from the public entrance(s)
to the building as a whole. The officer in charge will normally be a sergeant,
inspector or officer of equivalent rank. However, in some countries more
senior officers hold this responsibility, especially in the case of large facilities.
41

Visits to Police Stations

A careful examination should be made of interview rooms: particular attention
should be paid to the number of seats and their condition and position,
especially the condition and position of the seat intended for the interviewee.
Monitors should also note other features, such as holding cages, two-way
mirrors, restraint equipment and the general appearance of the room (e.g.
whether attempts may have been made to render it especially intimidating).

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

It is often helpful for monitors to sketch a simple map in order to have a
better understanding of the place they are visiting. However, monitors
should be sensitive to police concerns about safety and security; it is always
worth emphasising the confidentiality of such materials.
The key priorities are:
•	
•	

to inspect the material conditions in the detention area and cells,
and
to ascertain how detainees are treated.

Most police stations will not have more than half a dozen cells, although
some of the larger facilities in big cities have thirty or more. In large facilities,
it may be useful to determine where the custody officer sits in relation to
the cells themselves; if the custody officer sits some distance away, he or she
may be unable to hear detainees if they call for help.
It is also important that monitors assess, throughout the police station,
how access is facilitated for people who use wheelchairs or have severe
mobility impairments and what, if any, accommodations are made for other
disabilities (e.g. visual or auditory impairments).

Visits to Police Stations

II

Cells
The number of cells6 will depend on the size of the police station, and the size
and nature of the community it serves. Cells often vary in size; some may be
designed for single occupancy, others for two or more people. There may
be separate areas with cells for women and/or juveniles. The way cells are
furnished varies from country to country; furnishings may include a bed or
bench and perhaps a toilet. In some places there may be cells in which the
beds are close to the floor in order to prevent intoxicated detainees from
injuring themselves if they fall. In other contexts, the cells may be seemingly
temporary structures built of corrugated iron sheets or similar materials;
these often have no toilet and little or no furniture.
The first contact between the visiting team and detainees is likely to be in
cells while the monitors are conducting their overview of the facility. The
cell door will, in most cases, be opened by a guard who, depending on local
regulations, may first search the occupant(s) before monitors are allowed
inside. This is not usually the ideal start but monitors should be aware that the
6	

42

Those engaged in monitoring visits should note that cells may be found in more than
one location within a police station. In some countries, each department in a large police
station may have its own detention area.

Chapter II - Visits to Police Stations

police are expected to follow strict security procedures; trying to circumvent
these procedures may strain the relationship between the visiting team and
police staff. The first encounter is a good occasion for monitors to briefly
introduce themselves, their mandate and the reasons for their visit. They
may ask detainees whether they are willing to be interviewed in private and
agree when and where any interview will take place (see Chapter II, Part B,
Section 5.4 below). Monitors may also outline the interview procedure.
11 It is very important for monitors and police alike to bear
in mind that it is monitors who should choose which cells to
enter and which detainees to see, not the police.

Bathrooms and access to drinking water
The visiting team should also inspect the toilets, bathrooms, and other
such facilities to determine how they function, how they are accessed, and
how often and under what conditions in practice detainees are allowed to
use them. Detainees’ access to drinking water should also be checked by
monitoring bodies.
Kitchen and food storage
Monitors should visit any kitchen area where food is prepared or stored.
They should analyse the availability, accessibility and adequacy7 of the food.
They should also check whether a register containing details of the food
provided to detainees exists. In some countries food is brought by detainees’
families or detainees have to provide money to the police to purchase their
meals. The effects of such situations should be carefully considered.

II

Offices in a police station may include:
•	
•	
•	

criminal investigation, investigators’ and/or inspectors’ offices,
senior officers’ offices, and
administrative offices.

Whenever possible, monitors should strive to enter investigators’ offices
and have interviews with a few investigators, especially when their offices
are used to interview detainees.
7	

Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment N°12, UN Doc.
E/C.12/1999/5, Geneva, 12 May 1999. Available at http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/3
d02758c707031d58025677f003b73b9

43

Visits to Police Stations

Offices, living/sleeping quarters and storage spaces

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

Depending on the terms of their mandate, monitors may also require
cupboards, equipment stores and other such places to be opened. The
question of whether monitors should exercise this power as a matter of
routine is difficult to answer; judgement is necessary in deciding when and
how often to exercise these powers. Doing so may not produce information
of sufficient value to merit the possible negative effects on relationships
and co-operation with the police.
Similar principles apply to dormitories and private quarters in police
stations where staff live on the premises or are provided with sleeping
accommodation. These should not be entered without good cause. However,
if invited to do so by the police, monitors should accept. Demonstrating an
interest in the working and/or living conditions of the police themselves is
almost always appropriate and beneficial.

11 If, on the basis of strong suspicions that evidence of torture is
being hidden, monitors ask for personal spaces to be opened,
they should always ensure that a senior officer is present. This
will help to avoid allegations that the visiting team has caused
damage, unlawfully removed anything or planted evidence. In
some cases, other national authorities should immediately be
called to deal with the situation. During preparation for visits,
monitoring bodies should consider how they will act if they
encounter this type of scenario, giving particular attention to
the possible judicial implications of their findings.

Visits to Police Stations

II

If, during the course of a visit, monitors find evidence of torture or other illtreatment, or see weapons or other implements that they believe have been
used to torture or ill-treat detainees, they should pursue the matter to the
extent necessary within the bounds of their mandate. Thus, if monitors find a
baseball bat, rubber cosh or similar implement in an investigator’s office and
its presence is consistent with allegations received of ill-treatment at that
police station, the monitors would be acting perfectly properly in asking for
desk drawers, filing cabinets and other personal spaces in the office to be
opened for inspection. Whether or not such a search should be extended
to other offices in the same department, or elsewhere in the police station,
will depend on the monitors’ judgement based on the information in their
possession and the precise terms of their mandate and strategy.

Monitoring places of detention is normally geared towards encouraging
positive systemic change to make torture and other ill-treatment less likely
in future; however, if an immediate opportunity arises to prevent torture it
should be seized.
44

Chapter II - Visits to Police Stations

Other areas of interest
Police stations, depending on their size and location, may also contain the
following areas:8
•	

locker areas where police officers can store uniforms and personal
equipment,
communications, control and/or radio rooms,
armouries,
canteens, dining rooms and/or kitchens,
recreation areas where police can take breaks,
offices for crime scene investigators and/or technical police staff,
a briefing room for personnel coming on duty to be briefed and
brought up to date on recent incidents and intelligence,
report writing rooms where police officers can do their paperwork,
stores for court exhibits or lost property (which should be properly
labelled),
a garage where police vehicles are parked and maintained, and
police vehicles, including those adapted for transporting detainees.

•	
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	

II

It will depend entirely on the monitors’ mandate and diplomatic skills
whether or not they can enter and inspect these areas, and whether or not
they decide to do so.
11 See Chapter III, Section 3

Visits to Police Stations

The visiting team’s use of offices in police stations
It is likely that, during the course of a visit, monitors will wish to sit
down at some point
•	
•	

to carry out a detailed examination of registers or files, and
to cross-check the information gathered so far, especially if
the police station being visited is a large one.

The detention area may not be convenient for this due to its size or if
it is busy. Monitors should therefore ask for an office to be provided.

8	

This list is not intended to be exhaustive.

45

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

It is practical and desirable for monitors to work in private so that
they can discuss issues and information freely. However, the officer
escorting the team may remain present. In order to encourage the
officer to leave while avoiding offence, monitors could point out to
the officer that they are likely to be some time and that they have no
wish to keep him or her unduly from his or her duties. If the officer
does not take the hint, monitors should accept the officer’s presence.
If confidential issues need to be discussed, one of the monitors could
try to distract the police officer. Alternatively, if prior to starting a visit
monitors believe that they are likely to need to spend some time alone
inspecting documents or discussing their findings, they could discuss
this with the station commander during the initial meeting and ask if
a private office can be put at the team’s disposal.

4. Reviewing custody registers and other
documents

Visits to Police Stations

II

Although not comprehensive, this section explores a wide range of registers
and documents. Only some of the registers and documents discussed need
to be checked on every visit. Moreover, monitors should bear in mind that
the extent of their mandate may restrict the types of documents that they
may examine.
As monitors become familiar with custody records, the types of information
they contain and the ways in which they are completed, they will become
more sensitive to cases when something important is missing or unusual. As
a general rule, registers that are not completed accurately, or contain a large
number of errors and/or gaps, are cause for suspicion. A lack of attention to
detail is an undesirable trait in police officers and may be indicative of other,
more serious problems.
11 Monitors should not simply draw up a list of all existing
records in a particular place of detention and then check
whether entries have been filled in or not. They should also
analyse the information in registers in light of relevant
standards. While well-kept registers are no guarantee that
detainees are treated fairly, and ill-kept registers are not a
sure sign of abusive practices, they are significant indicators
that should be included in triangulation processes.
11 See Chapter III, Section 2.9
46

Chapter II - Visits to Police Stations

4.1. Local orders and instructions
It is useful to request to see copies of local orders and instructions about
the administration of cell areas. Monitors will have familiarised themselves
with legislation and/or national regulations governing these issues during
their preparations for the visit, but local commanders may have issued
supplementary instructions. Key issues include the maximum number of
people to be detained in a cell at any one time, the frequency of searches, and
matters to do with cleanliness. Often instructions on these issues are fixed to
a wall or notice-board, so monitors should take the time to look at these.

4.2. Custody records

Making a thorough examination of custody records is one of the most important
aspects of monitoring visits to police stations. The information collected
should be carefully cross-checked with data gathered during interviews with
detainees, staff and the station commander. This is an essential component of
the triangulation process (see Chapter II, Part B, Section 1.4 above).
Monitors will usually find a general custody record, with chronological entries
about arrivals and releases, as well as individual records for each detainee.
Comparing the information contained in these two types of documents is
often very useful. Custody records should give precise information on the
movements of all detainees in and out of the police station. Thus, they are
47

II

Visits to Police Stations

Registers vary in complexity and comprehensiveness from country to country
and even from station to station. Some are very basic, including little more
than the name, address, date of birth and time of arrival of each detainee;
others contain details of every aspect of a detainee’s time in custody (e.g.
when food was supplied and exercise allowed). Officers at a particular police
station may decide that it is useful to keep a record in a separate, dedicated
register of the number of times detained persons have been taken from the
police station to the hospital; however, it may be that no such register exists
in a neighbouring police station. Therefore, visiting teams must know about
both the types of registers and documentation that the police are obliged
by law and/or internal regulation to keep and those that have been seen on
previous visits but are not required by legislation or regulation. Much useful
information can often be found in these ‘unofficial’ registers. Moreover,
these may represent examples of good practice that can be highlighted
and shared. However, monitors should keep in mind that the protection of
personal data should be respected at all times and that the existence of such
registers might breach legislation on the protection of personal data.

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

one of the most important safeguards against enforced disappearances and
arbitrary detention.
These records also provide an overview of police officers’ movements in and
around the cell area. For instance, the police may be required to conduct
hourly visits to the cells and to record these in a register. However, monitors
should be alert to the fact that the police sometimes complete these registers
after the fact; thus, they do not always constitute an accurate record.
The standard of custody records – how accurate, detailed and up-to-date
they are –reveal a lot about the attitude of the station’s staff to detainees.
Inadequacies in custody records may reveal a range of policy-level problems
or systemic issues relevant to monitors’ work. However, monitors should
keep in mind that accurate and well-kept records are not guarantees against
abuses or ill-treatment. The priority, from a preventive perspective, is the
type of information kept and the analysis monitors can perform by crosschecking data from different registers and by triangulating their findings
with other sources of information.

Visits to Police Stations

II

During the initial talk with the station commander, it is useful to identify
who is responsible for the various registers and who is in charge of keeping
the key(s) to the place(s) where these are kept if they are locked away when
not in use. It is not uncommon for the key to be untraceable when the
relevant person is off duty, especially at night or at the weekend. However,
the police have international duties to complete appropriate and up-todate registers;9 this implies that registers should be accessible at all hours
of the day and night. This is also one of the reasons why monitoring bodies
should visit police stations at different times and on different days.
11 The analysis of custody records, including the identification
of groups who might be in situations of vulnerability, can be
extremely useful for selecting detainees to interview.

Regardless of domestic standards, regulations and practices, monitors can
use the principles enshrined in the UN ICPAPED10 as a compass for assessing
the information included in registers, though it is only binding on States
that have ratified it. According to the ICPAPED, the following types of data
should be included in registers for each person deprived liberty:
9	

As mandated, for instance, by the Declaration on the Protection of all Persons from
Enforced Disappearance, UN Doc. A/RES/47/133, 18 December 1992, Art. 10.3. Available
at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/disappearance.htm

10	 See Art. 17.3. Available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/disappearanceconvention.htm

48

Chapter II - Visits to Police Stations

•	
•	
•	
•	
•	

•	
•	

•	

the identity of the person,
the date, time and place where he or she was deprived of liberty
and the identity of the authority that deprived the person of liberty,
the authority that ordered the deprivation of liberty and the
grounds for the deprivation of liberty,
the authority responsible for supervising the deprivation of liberty,
the place of deprivation of liberty, the date and time of admission
to the place of deprivation of liberty, and the authority responsible
for the place of deprivation of liberty,
details relating to the state of health of the person deprived of
liberty,
in the event of death during deprivation of liberty, the circumstances
of the death, the details of the investigation into the cause and
manner of death, and the destination of the remains, and
the date and time of release or transfer to another place of
detention, the destination, and the authority responsible for the
transfer (if the person was not released).

As such essential information contributes to safeguarding the rights of
the detainees against possible human rights violations, incomplete or
inaccurate entries in custody registers should be addressed by monitors in
their dialogue with the authorities.

II

Computerised registers

4.3. Information to look for when examining
custody registers
Name
Monitors should verify that a separate entry has been made in relation to
each detained person. Best practice is that a record is opened as soon as
a detainee arrives at a police station. Delays, omissions or inconsistencies
should give rise to concern for two reasons:
49

Visits to Police Stations

Monitors should also be aware that in some countries there are few or no paper
records may be kept: registers may be entirely computerised. Therefore, it is
useful for at least one member of the monitoring team to have expertise in the
field of information technology. It is also helpful for all the team’s members to
be familiar with the types of computing system used by the police.

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

•	

•	

Detainees whose presence in a police station is not recorded are
often at greater risk of torture, other ill-treatment or enforced
disappearance; and
The inaccurate registering of detention times may result in a suspect
being detained for longer than the legally permitted period.

Monitors should view with deep concern any examples of detainees for
whom no records exist. They should bring any such instances to the attention
of the officer in charge of the detention area, the station commander and/
or other senior officers; this should be done at the earliest opportunity. The
team should also detail such situations in their report(s), along with any
explanation given by staff.
Dates and times

Visits to Police Stations

II

Monitors should check that all dates and times are recorded accurately.
During visits, it is good practice to check the accuracy of the station’s official
timekeeping system: any tendency to record dates and times approximately
should be noted as this risks legal time limits being breached. Records in
which times appear to have been consistently rounded up or down to the
nearest five or ten minute period (for example, if entries follow the pattern
11.25am, 11.40am, 12.15pm) may indicate that the times given are inaccurate.
Monitors should also be suspicious if persons are consistently shown as being
released at the very end of the legally permitted period. If police have the
authority to detain persons initially for a 24 hour period in a given country,
and the majority of detainees are shown as having been released after exactly
24 hours, monitors should make further investigation of the issue a priority.
It is also important to consider whether the timescales recorded are realistic.
For instance, if a person is recorded as having been arrested at a location a
considerable distance away from the police station and yet is recorded as
having arrived five minutes after arrest, suspicions should be aroused.
Monitors should also check that entries are in chronological order: a person
arrested at 4pm should not appear in the register before a person arrested
at 3.50pm. If monitors find inconsistencies in chronological order, they
should raise these with the officer in charge of the detention area and the
station commander. Monitors may also find it useful to cross-check the
time of arrest given in the general custody register with the time entered
in the detainee’s file, with information in other registries, and/or with the
detaining officer, if appropriate.
50

Chapter II - Visits to Police Stations

Monitors should check that entries actually provide the information
required. For example, if a space in a register requires that the date and time
of a suspect’s transfer is recorded along with the method of transfer (e.g.
to court or to another police station), monitors should check that all the
information is included. If it is not, they should ask to be provided with it
and ask why it is not recorded.
Information provided to detainees
Monitors should also check what types of information are provided to
detainees; they should also check when the information was provided.
Moreover, monitors should confirm that both detainees and police have
signed entries to this effect in the records required. Detainees should be given
•	
•	
•	
•	

information about their rights,
the option to have a family member or other third party notified of
their detention,
access to a lawyer, and
access to a medical doctor.11

Dubious modifications

Patterns
Monitors should not restrict their examination of custody records to those
relating to persons detained at the time of the visit but should also examine
previous records. These provide a broader perspective on a police station’s
general standard of record keeping than is usually the case with records
relating solely to current detainees. Furthermore, previous records may
11	 See CPT Standards, CPT, CoE Doc. CPT/Inf/E (2002) 1, 2002 (revised 2011), p.8. Available at
http://www.cpt.coe.int/En/documents/eng-standards.pdf

51

II

Visits to Police Stations

Monitors should check that any apparent mistakes in entries have not been
obliterated. They may find that such errors have been covered in ‘white
ink’ or typewriter correction fluid, making them completely illegible. While
this may have been done for entirely innocent reasons, it is an undesirable
practice; it can lead to suspicion that ‘inconvenient’ but factually correct
information is being intentionally hidden. Best practice is that errors should
be crossed out using a single line so that the original information remains
visible and legible. The correct information should then be added above or
immediately after the correction. The person making the correction should
then initial or sign the entry.

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

reveal important patterns; for instance, it is useful to know how the facility
copes when there are more detainees than the station officially has room to
accommodate. Officers may tell monitors that their station’s cells are never
overcrowded, but an examination of registers over several months may
reveal this to be untrue.
When visiting police stations at weekends or outside normal office hours, it
is often a good idea to ask about access to archived records at an early stage
of the visit. It may be that they are locked away in a store and that there is
only one person with a key. As this person may not be on duty at the time
of the visit, it may be necessary for the police to arrange for the key to be
brought to the station.
Health status of detainees
The custody register should indicate the health status of each detainee at
the time when he or she arrived at the police station. The initial health status
should be determined
•	

Visits to Police Stations

II

•	

by the answers the detainee gives in response to a standard series
of questions asked by the custody officer, and
by the custody officer’s direct observations

The detainee’s initial health status should be recorded along with the date
and time of the assessment.
This protects both detainees and police officers, not least by identifying
potential risks to detainees’ health and safety while in custody. For example,
the custody officer should ask if the detainee has an illness or injury and then
record the answer given. If the answer is affirmative, then the officer should
ask for further information about whether the detainee is currently under
medical supervision and/or taking any medication regularly. It is important
that illnesses (e.g. asthma, diabetes, epilepsy and heart disease) that are
treated through regular medication be recorded. The officer should also record
whether detainees who need to take medication regularly have it with them
or not, and whether they have enough both for the period of their detention
in the police station and also, if relevant, for the duration of their transfer to
another place of detention. The need to take regular medication is a reason
for the custody officer to refer the detainee for a medical consultation so that
the doctor or nurse can verify this and, if necessary, prescribe the medication.
Custody officers may also note if they think that a detainee is intoxicated,
either due to drugs or alcohol. This should trigger a referral to a healthcare
52

Chapter II - Visits to Police Stations

professional. The use of alcohol and/or drugs may be risk factors for selfharm, violent behaviour or even suicide; therefore, medical intervention
may be necessary for preventive purposes.
Custody officers may also observe that a detainee might have a physical
disability, mental illness, or some form of intellectual impairment that may
be affected by being detained; if so, the detainee should be referred for
assessment by a healthcare professional.
In some jurisdictions, the local healthcare system may provide specific
healthcare services for detainees (e.g. for intoxicated persons or persons with a
mental disorder) once they are notified by the custody officer or the detainee is
referred by a nurse or doctor. There are often systems in place to divert people
with mental health issues away from police custody to local assessment and
treatment facilities. Interim measures to safeguard such detainees may be
noted in the individual’s custody record(s) (e.g. the person might be placed
under close observation to reduce the risk of suicide or self-harm). Monitors
should cross-check this information and analyse whether procedures are
observed (e.g. is close and regular monitoring done by a nurse or a doctor?).

4.4. Other information
The following types of information are also likely12 to be recorded in the
custody register and/or other registers.

II

4.4.1. Contact with the outside world
Telephone calls and visits

•	
•	
•	
•	
•	

Visits to Police Stations

A record of calls made by or on behalf of detainees may be kept. If so, it
should detail calls made by or on behalf of each detainee to
lawyers, especially if provided at public expense,
doctors or nurses,
social workers, mental health institutions, drug treatment
programmes, and similar bodies,
consulates and/or interpreters in respect of foreign nationals who
have been detained, and
chaplains or other religious personnel.

12	 Monitors should record cases when this information is not recorded, especially if relevant
to their visit. Moreover, including a recommendation on the issue in the visit report, and/
or in dialogue with the authorities, will encourage better practice in future.

53

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

A record of visits to detainees should be kept; this should detail which, if
any, of the categories outlined above each visitor represents.
Oversight
Monitors should analyse records of the times and dates of inspection
visits to the detention area by senior officers, internal control mechanisms,
judges and prosecutors. These records may contain comments about the
conditions encountered at the time of the visit, the number of persons in
detention and perhaps the detainees’ names.
If there is a national inspection body, such as an NPM or NGO that is guaranteed,
or has been granted, access to police stations, their visits should be recorded.
Inspections by universal or regional institutions should also be recorded.
Courts and prosecutors
The visiting team should also ask to see the record of files sent to prosecutors
and courts, together with the names of the persons to whom the files relate.
Records should state when detainees are taken to court or when they are
brought before a judge.
4.4.2. Record of incidents

Visits to Police Stations

II

Incidents and injuries
Monitors should analyse records of any incidents that occurred in the
detention area. These should include, for example, suicide attempts,
self-harm by detainees, and disorder of any kind. Where bruises or other
physical harm is alleged to have occurred prior to a detainees’ arrival in the
detention area, this should be recorded; the record should clearly indicated
if the harm is alleged to be related to earlier police ill-treatment (e.g. during
transport to the police station) or quite unrelated events. Complaints about
violence from other detainees should also be recorded.
Use of force
Records on the use of force and the use of means of coercion (e.g. pepper
spray or CS/tear gas) should be checked and analysed in conjunction with
records of incidents and injuries.
4.4.3. Record of police procedures and operations
Searches
The visiting team should also ask to see the record of personal searches.
54

Chapter II - Visits to Police Stations

This should give the identity of the authorising officer and the searching
officers in each case. When examining this type of record, or discussing the
issue of searching with police and detainees, the nature of searches, and the
number and gender of police staff present during the search, should always
be ascertained. The same types of information should also be sought in
relation to searches carried out on visitors to the police station.
Recorded interviews
In countries where interviews are electronically recorded, a register of all video
tapes, audio tapes, CDs or other data storage media issued to interviewing
officers should be kept. Monitors should check whether this record provides
details of the detainee interviewed on each recording. Records may also
include the time each storage medium was issued and the time unused
media were returned. Where an external officer monitors all interviews, the
records he or she keeps should be checked for accuracy, level of detail, and to
assess whether (and in what circumstances) he or she choose to intervene (or
failed to intervene) in interviews; as the person best placed to immediately
stop or prevent torture, this officer’s willingness to challenge, rather than
simply record, the actions of colleagues should be carefully assessed.
Fingerprints and photographs

II

Visits to Police Stations

Monitors should also review records of all persons fingerprinted and
photographed. Often, copies of photographs of detained persons are also
kept and these may be worth examining if monitors suspect that someone
may have been assaulted and received facial injuries. However, these injuries
may not have been caused by the police, or not by the police at the station; it
is good practice to cross-check photographic evidence of injury and written
records explaining when and where the incident that caused the injury is
alleged to have occurred (see above Chapter II, Part B, Section 4.4.2 above).
Items confiscated by the police
Records should be kept of drugs, prohibited weapons, stolen property and
other items confiscated by the police. These records should show the time
and date of seizure and the name of the detainee from whom the property
was taken, together with information on the final disposal of the item(s).
Record of personal belongings
Visiting teams should also check records of personal belongings seized
by the police. The time and date of seizure and the name of the detainee
55

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

concerned should always be noted. Records should be signed by both the
police and the detainee who owns the items.
Witnesses and other visitors
Similarly, monitors should check records of persons visiting the police
station who are not formally detained. This record may include all visitors or
only those who have been interviewed in connection with criminal matters
or matters related to police business.
Special needs

Visits to Police Stations

II

A record of any reasonable accommodation required by detainees
with physical or mental disabilities may be used by staff to help them
communicate in writing about particular detainees with special needs (e.g.
about someone who has a severe hearing impairment or about the fact that
a person affected by Tourette’s Syndrome or a similar disorder might have
outbursts). In most countries, domestic legislation will make provision for
additional assistance for detainees with special needs; if so, records should
indicate how these provisions have been complied with (e.g. through
organising support by an appropriate adult or other carer, sign language
speaker or interpreter).
Complaints lodged against the police
Records of complaints against the police should also be analysed. These
may point to trends in ill-treatment and/or other violations, or to the fact
that higher numbers of complaints have been made about one officer. It is
important to check what actions have been taken with regard to complaints
and how senior staff use complaints to take preventive action.

5. Private interviews with persons deprived of
their liberty
Interviewing persons detained in police stations is one of the most basic
tasks visiting teams perform; it is also one of the most complicated. It
requires careful thought and handling. If carried out incorrectly, there is a
risk of obtaining incomplete information, being deliberately misled or even
putting detainees at risk.
Interviews in private are the cornerstone of almost any visit to a place of
detention. They fulfil two key functions:
56

Chapter II - Visits to Police Stations

•	
•	

they give detainees the opportunity to express themselves freely
to someone from the outside and,
they allow monitors to gather firsthand information regarding
detainees’ treatment and conditions of detention.

Monitor should keep the following issues in mind throughout their visit, but
especially during interviews:
•	

Persons in police custody are often suffering from great stress.
They may be shocked, frightened, confused, traumatised, mentally
disturbed, violent, depressed, under the influence of drugs/
alcohol, or otherwise vulnerable due to age or membership of a
marginalised or stigmatised social group. Detainees may lie to
monitors and/or make false allegations about their treatment.

•	

For the purposes of preventive detention monitoring, the
innocence or guilt of persons deprived of their liberty should not
be of concern to monitors unless relevant to a flagrant and obvious
breach of due process.

•	

Persons deprived of liberty may perceive monitors as a source of
help. Therefore, they may say what they think monitors want to
hear in order to get their help. A key part of the job is (i) to carry out
interviews in a manner that tests what detainees are saying and (ii) to
cross-check information whenever possible. Conversely, detainees
may see monitors as part of an official system that cannot be trusted.
It is crucial to explain the visiting body’s mandate clearly, both to
avoid raising false expectations and to create a relationship of trust.
Once the visiting body’s mandate has been explained, interviewers
should ensure that they have the informed consent of the detainee
to talk in private. If the detainee refuses, for any reason, this refusal
should be respected.

•	

It is important for monitors to be sensitive to the needs of the
police and the legal system, remembering that the time available
to the police to complete investigations is limited and that they are
under pressure. For example, if the police need time to interview
a particular detainee, monitors should try to interview another
detainee or undertake another monitoring task, such as analysing
registers. However, they should usually make another attempt
to interview the detainee later in the visit. Monitors should be
prepared to be flexible and amend their plan of action, if the need

Visits to Police Stations

•	

II

57

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

arises, in order to avoid interfering with investigations. At the same
time, monitors must ensure that they are able to carry out their
duties.
•	

Using informants is a common police tactic; in police stations,
informants may be placed in cells with suspects to report what is
said and done. Thus, an interviewee who alleges ill-treatment or
other improper conduct on the part of the police may be placed in
danger if the interview with monitors occurs in the presence and
hearing of other detainees.

•	

For many reasons, accounts given in the presence of other detainees
may not be accurate, even if an informant is not purposefully
‘planted’ among the detainees. Interviews can only be considered
private when monitors are talking to one detainee only and when
no other persons are in a position to overhear or observe the
interview. If more than one detainee participates in an interview, it
is should be considered a group interview.

5.1. Confidentiality of interviews

Visits to Police Stations

II

Confidentiality is one of the key principles of preventive monitoring.
Ensuring that confidentiality is respected, and explaining to detainees how
the information they provide will be used, is of paramount importance in
protecting detainees and creating trust. Monitors should take sufficient
time to explain what confidentiality implies. Before continuing with an
interview, they should also ensure that they have the detainee’s consent.
Monitors should then make sure that the interview is, in fact, conducted out
of hearing and preferably out of sight of all other parties.
Monitors may find police staff listening at the door to the room they have
co-opted for interviews. In such cases, monitors should politely but firmly
reassert their mandate; if two monitors are interviewing a detainee, one
should leave the cell and talk to the police officer concerned, ensuring the
privacy of the interview and, at the same time, taking the opportunity to get
information from the officer.
If confidentiality cannot be guaranteed for any reason during a private
interview, monitors should consider not conducting it at all. In such cases,
the views of the detainee should be considered prior to monitors making
a final decision on whether to proceed; if a detainee appears to be fully
aware of any risks he or she is running, and still prefers to persist with the
58

Chapter II - Visits to Police Stations

interview, monitors should rarely deny a detainee the opportunity to speak
and be listened to.

5.2. Interviewing individually or in pairs
In most monitoring bodies, monitors conduct interviews individually
or in teams of two. There should never be more than three interviewers
involved in a particular interview, including any interpreter, as this is likely
to overwhelm and intimidate the detainee; it will also make it difficult to
manage the interview. Interviews in pairs are particularly useful when
complaints are expected as independent judgement can then be exercised
by two people working together. It can also be useful when a visiting body
is mentoring a new monitor. When regular visits are made to a particular
police station, this issue may be less salient.
When working in pairs, the following division of tasks is advisable:
•	
•	

•	

•	

II

Visits to Police Stations

•	

One member should act as lead interviewer and ask most of the
questions.
The second member should take notes, but only after receiving
consent for this from the interviewee. The fact that notes will be
taken should be explained to the detainee beforehand and the
confidentiality of these notes should be stressed.
The note-taker should not interrupt the lead interviewer with
questions unless invited to do so as this may be disruptive for the
lead interviewee and intimidating for the interviewee.
When the lead interviewer has finished putting all the questions
he or she has, the note-taker should be invited (i) to pick up on
specific points in order to explore what the detainee has said in
more detail and (ii) to raise any further issues. The note-taker often
benefits from being able to concentrate on the information given
without having to think about the line of questioning; as a result,
he or she often notices details missed by the lead interviewer that
can then (if appropriate) be explored.
It can be useful to alternate roles in subsequent interviews, though
the team may agree not to do so for a variety of reasons.

5.3. Selecting interviewees
Since police stations are usually small facilities with a limited number of
detainees, monitors should generally apply the principle of ‘all or nothing
59

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

selection’:13 monitors should choose either to interview all persons deprived
of liberty or none. This reduces the risk of sanctions or reprisals against
individuals.14
In most police stations, there will not be a sufficient number of detainees
to refine the selection criteria. However, in police facilities that hold a large
number of detainees, it will not feasible to interview everyone; therefore,
monitors must decide which detainee(s) they wish to interview. The
selection is usually made either randomly or based on prior examination
of the custody register. It can also be based on other criteria defined in
advance by the visiting team; for instance, a visit may focus on detained
children or members of generally marginalised or stigmatised groups (e.g.
ethnic minorities, sex offenders, sex workers or those suspected of terrorismrelated crimes). However, it is important to ensure that the selection process
is perceived to be objective, so as not to put any detainees at risk after the
monitors have completed their visit and left.
11 Monitors, rather than the police, should always choose
which detainees the visiting team interviews.

Visits to Police Stations

II

Whatever way monitors proceed, they should keep in mind that not every
detainee may be available: some may be undergoing a police interview;
some may be undergoing an examination by a doctor or nurse; some may be
at court or speaking to their lawyers; and others may be asleep.15 Moreover,
not every detainee may wish to be interviewed and consent is necessary
to proceed. A detainee’s decision to grant or withhold consent must be
respected; monitors undermine the effectiveness and legitimacy of their
work if they are perceived as seeking to obtain information at any cost, and/
or willing to compel individuals to participate in interviews. Respecting the
principle of informed consent helps to distinguish monitors from the police.
13	See The Selection of Persons to Interview in the Context of Preventive
Detention Monitoring (Detention Monitoring Briefing N°2), APT,
Geneva, April 2009, p.5. Available at http://www.apt.ch/index.
php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=269&Itemid=259&lang=en
14	See Mitigating the Risks of Sanctions Related to Detention Monitoring (Detention
Monitoring Briefing N°4), APT, Geneva, January 2012. Available at http://www.apt.ch/
index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=1169:sanctions&Itemid=229&lang=en
15	 Detainees must be allowed to rest; in some countries, the nature and length of rest is
laid down in law so that detainees are protected from coercive questioning and similar
procedures. Interruption of periods of rest may be harmful for detainees and create legal
problems for the police; therefore, monitors should avoid waking sleeping detainees
unless this is considered absolutely necessary in a particular case and the action can be
objectively justified later.

60

Chapter II - Visits to Police Stations

There may be occasions when monitors visit a police station and there are
no detainees held there at the time. The visit should still proceed in these
circumstances to assess the material conditions and the custody register.
In addition, discussions can still be held with the police officers present.
Moreover, monitors may discover that there are detainees in the police
station after all.

5.4. ‘Dangerous’ detainees
Occasionally monitors may be informed that a particular detainee is
dangerous and, therefore, they are not permitted to be alone with him
or her and/or the cell door cannot even be opened. This may be due to
the potential for violence or escape, or because the detainee is suffering
from a communicable disease. Monitors should always ask for evidence
justifying such advice. This should be cross-checked as far as possible
during interviews with other detained persons and/or documentation
held at the police station.
Having heard the evidence, monitors will have to make a judgement
on how to proceed; visiting teams should take into account the fact
that experience suggests monitors are rarely in danger in this kind of
situation. Monitors may decide to reject the police’s advice or try to
reach a compromise; for example, they may ask to speak to the detainee
in the sight of, but out of the hearing of, the police. Monitors should
keep in mind that, when negotiating any compromise, diplomacy
is more effective than confrontation. The police may not always be
justified when they issue such warnings but they may well be acting in
good faith. Monitors should make the final decision about speaking to
‘dangerous’ detainees and, if something goes wrong, the responsibility
should also be theirs: a fact they should stress during negotiations.

II

The location of an interview should be considered carefully, especially as
regards ensuring confidentiality. Some monitors may favour remaining in the
cell with the detainee; others may prefer to go elsewhere. Usually the options
in police stations are limited. All parties to an interview should be comfortable
and that is best achieved if they can all sit down in a well-lit room in which the
subject of the interview does not feel intimidated. There will probably be an
interview room available in, or close to, the cell area; monitors may decide to
61

Visits to Police Stations

5.5. Where to interview

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

ask to use this provided that the detainees to be interviewed are comfortable
with the idea. If there is an exercise yard, this may also be suitable, provided
that the weather is not inclement. Monitors should be aware that some
rooms, including offices of senior officers, may hold memories of traumatic
experiences for some detainees or simply be associated with abusive
authority. Disregarding this may undermine the visiting team’s image of
independence. The possible presence of cameras and/or microphones
should also be considered, especially if a police interview room is used.
11 As a general rule, interviews should take place in a location
where the detainee feels as comfortable as possible.

5.6. Starting interviews

II

In order to hold interviews, it is essential that monitors gain the informed
consent of potential interviewees. When monitors enter a detainee’s cell,
and the police officer has left, monitors should introduce themselves,
giving their names, functions and describing their mandate. They should
then ascertain if the detainee is willing to speak to them, if this has not
been done previously. If monitors are being assisted by an interpreter, they
should make clear that
•	

Visits to Police Stations

•	

the interpreter is bound by the same duty of confidentiality as the
monitoring team, and that
the interpreter is working for the visiting team and is not an
employee of the police or linked to the police in any other way.

The vast majority of detainees agree to talk to monitors, even if reluctantly
or with some initial fear. However, if a detainee indicates that he or she
does not wish to speak to the team, then no pressure should be put on the
detainee to change his or her mind. If monitors have explained who they
are, stressed their independence and the confidentiality of any conversation
they may have, they have done all they can. Monitors should thank detainees
who refuse to be interviewed for their time and then move on.
During interviews, monitors aim to gather firsthand information about
the way detainees perceives their detention and treatment by the police.
Monitors will often have specific objectives for their visit (e.g. to assess the
use of force during apprehension by the police or whether the access to
a lawyer is granted in practice) and will tailor interviews accordingly. On
some occasions, monitors may reconsider their initial objectives as a result
of what they learn. The information gathered during interviews should then
62

Chapter II - Visits to Police Stations

be triangulated with information collected from other sources in order to
ascertain its accuracy and credibility.
During an interview with a detainee (or detainees) in a police station,
monitors must
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	

introduce themselves,
reassure the detainee that the information gathered during the
interview will be treated confidentially, unless agreed otherwise,
gain the detainee’s confidence,
find out some basic facts about the detainee,
obtain detailed information about what might be a very
complicated situation or set of facts,
put questions designed to test and clarify the information given, and
manage any false expectations the detainee might have as regards
the monitors’ visit.

All this must be accomplished in a relatively short period of time.
Giving the necessary information
Monitors must give each interviewee the information he or she needs to
make an informed choice about whether, and in what way, to participate
in the interview. In the opening phase, the monitors should introduce
themselves individually as well as their monitoring body and its mandate.
They should explain the monitoring and interviewing processes, as well
as the objectives of the visit and the particular importance of holding
interviews in private with detainees.

II

Monitors should explain the extent to which they can respect the
confidentiality of any information given and be transparent about the risks
the interviewee may face as a result of participating in the interview.
Creating trust
The opening part of an interview should not be a one-way delivery of
information. Monitors should seek to engage potential interviewees in
63

Visits to Police Stations

Rather than setting a time limit or saying exactly how long interviews will
last (which is hard to determine in advance), monitors may want to explain
that they will have to bear the issue of time in mind as they must interview
as many people as possible. Monitors should also explain that interviewing
as many people as possible is a good protection against possible sanctions.

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

conversation and may even begin by discussing issues unrelated to the
detention context in order to put detainees at ease. Discussing nonthreatening issues is a good way to do this, but what it entails will depend on
the specific situation. For example, if monitors see a book that the detainee
is reading, they may comment on it. Others prefer to ask non-intrusive
questions to establish a rapport. The context will dictate which themes are
likely to be appropriate and effective for breaking the ice. Talking about
the cell itself is usually unthreatening to most detainees. The way trust is
created will obviously vary dramatically according to the detainee’s (as well
as the monitors’) gender, age, social background, ethnicity, mother tongue,
mental capacity and so forth. Monitors should reflect on these issues prior
to, and during, visits and adapt their approaches accordingly.

Visits to Police Stations

II

Establishing trust is important because detainees may fear the consequences
of talking to monitors. However, establishing trust involves more than
merely providing an assurance that anything said during the interview will
remain confidential. It demands a personal style that is friendly and helpful,
both in terms of what monitors say and their non-verbal communication.
For example, it is important to avoid standing around a detainee in his or
her cell while he or she sits on a bench. Being patient and empathic, even
when a detainee is not getting to the point, is important too. Monitors
should keep in mind that people who have been tortured or otherwise illtreated will be traumatised; they may be unwilling to talk about what has
happened to them, especially if sexual abuse is involved. Facial expressions,
the way monitors are seated and their actions with pens and notebooks
can all give negative impressions to detainees; it is vital that monitors try
to ‘observe’ themselves (and their words and actions) from the detainee’s
point of view at all times.
During interviews, monitors should convey the fact that they are genuinely
interested in detainees’ comments. Listening is not a passive activity: body
language is especially important in this regard. Monitors should also learn
about the appropriateness of eye contact in the relevant country, noting that
norms about eye contact vary across different cultural and ethnic groups.
Monitors should think carefully about every aspect of their own non-verbal
communication (e.g. if and when they nod). It is essential, if monitors are being
assisted by an interpreter, to speak facing the detainee and not the interpreter.
Assessing the situation
As they speak with a detainee, monitors should be assessing various issues:
the behaviour of the interviewee, the information given, whether the
64

Chapter II - Visits to Police Stations

detainee may be in danger as a result of participation in the interview, and/
or whether the detainee is afraid of sanctions or reprisals. The detainee may
have been threatened not to participate or, equally, coerced to participate.
When detainees have been coerced, it is possible that they have been told to
reassure the monitors that all is well, even if this is not the case. Each of these
situations will require a different response. When coercion is suspected and/
or when there is a suspicion that the confidentiality of an interview will be
breached, monitors may want to encourage detainees to communicate
sensitive information via writing or drawing.
Monitors should also check that interviewees understand what is being
discussed. If they do not, monitors should seek to determine whether this
is a matter of language, the result of psychological difficulties, a conceptual
problem, an issue of distraction or the result of a hearing impairment.
Monitors can then adapt their tone and style of speaking accordingly.
Monitors should also be alert to the psychological condition of detainees
and when continuing an interview may be detrimental. For example, if the
interviewee begins to manifest serious signs of trauma, monitors will have
to make a decision on the way the interview is conducted and if it should
even be conducted at all.16

II

5.7. Working with an interpreter16

Visits to Police Stations

If the visiting team is working with an interpreter, it is extremely
important that his or her role is clear, both during talks with the
authorities in charge of the facility and during private interviews with
detained persons. The monitoring body should also be aware that
security issues might be different for interpreters because they may
be perceived as not having the same protections conferred on other
members of the visiting team by the visiting body’s mandate.
It is important that the interpreter does not lead any conversation.
This is the case even when several visits are carried out with the same
interpreter’s assistance. First, it is not the interpreter’s job.

16	 The issue of how monitors and interpreters should work together is analysed
in Detention Monitoring Briefing, N°3: Using Interpreters in Detention
Monitoring, APT, Geneva, May 2009. Available at http://www.apt.ch/index.
php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=270&Itemid=259&lang=en

65

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

Second, if the interpreter does all the talking, he or she will be established
in the minds of the police as the person in charge of the group; while this
is an impression that can be corrected in due course, in some countries
it may cause difficulties for the interpreter in the future, especially if he
or she is from the same locality or region as the police station. The police
may regard the interpreter’s relationship with the monitoring body
as more than just the professional and neutral provision of language
assistance; if so, the police may take retaliatory measures. Third, the
interpreter may not say exactly what is desired if monitors hand over
responsibility for dialogue with the police and/or detainees.
In addition, if the visiting team works with the same interpreter for
lengthy periods, or during a number of visits, he or she may will get
used to the line of questioning generally taken in interviews; in some
cases, interpreters will then anticipate what the next question is going
to be and put it without being asked to do so. If this happens, a quiet
word with the interpreter after the interview is over, or at some other
convenient time, is advisable.
Although the interpreter is clearly a member of the team, his or her role
should be explained to all of the people the team meets at each stage of
the visit. It is good practice for monitors to brief interpreters in advance
(particularly if they are new to working on preventive monitoring issues)
on the key terms or phrases that will be used repeatedly during the visit.

II

Visits to Police Stations

Consideration should also be given to the fact that the police may
be particularly suspicious of interpreters if, for instance, both the
interpreter and the detainee are from the same marginalised minority.
Detainees may also be suspicious of interpreters: a common language
or ethnicity does not denote other common ground. The selection
of interpreters is therefore vital for carrying out effective monitoring
visits, bearing in mind the principle to ‘do no harm’. The presence of an
interpreter should not expose detainees to greater risks of ill-treatment.
At the same time, interpreters should not suffer any type of reprisal for
working with the monitoring body.

5.8. Asking questions
It is not a good idea to launch into a series of questions immediately after
introductions have been made. Generally, the best procedure is to ask some
66

Chapter II - Visits to Police Stations

loosely phrased question such as ‘How do you come to be here?’ and let
the detainee give an account in his or her own words.17 This is especially
important with young and/or vulnerable people. If a detainee’s account
dries up, a question such as ‘What happened next?’ will probably get it
started again. Only once the detainee has completed his or her account
should further questions be put.
It is important that questions are asked in a logical order and that the team
asks all the questions they intended to put to the detainee, even if some
of these have already been answered in the detainee’s initial account.
Detainees are sometimes confused about dates and times and a logical
sequence of questions may reveal inconsistencies and/or prompt them
to remember things that they had forgotten or about which they were
mistaken in their original account.
The best way to frame questions depends on the characteristics of the
interviewee. However, the content of questions will depend on the objectives
of the visit in terms of the issues that the monitors are aiming to analyse.
Monitors should be very careful in the way they phrase their questions. Even
if monitors know the answer (e.g. about whether a detainee was medically
examined because they have seen the medical register) they should avoid
giving the impression that they have a specific answer in mind. An openended question about access to a doctor may result in an answer that
contradicts information already in monitors’ possession (e.g. information
garnered from examining registers or talking with the police). Open-ended
questions enable monitors to delve further into such issues and, if necessary,
challenge the information given by detainees or the police.

II

Visits to Police Stations

Open-ended questions encourage detainees to search their memory
to provide an accurate and reliable account. Therefore, this approach
minimises the possibility of suggestion (i.e. it reduces the likelihood of
detainees giving answers that they think monitors want to hear rather
than the truth).
As a general rule, both closed-ended and leading questions should be
avoided. Closed-ended questions are those that merely require simple
17	 However, simple, closed-ended questions, such as ‘How long have you been here?’,
are fairly innocuous; they also represent a good way to start interviews. As there is no
golden rule for interviewing detainees, monitors’ experience will determine the way
they conduct interviews.

67

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

answers drawn from a short list of possibilities; indeed, many closedended questions require yes or no answers. Closed-ended questions
can be useful for checking facts but should be used with care and
skill. Leading questions, on the other hand, usually contain or strongly
suggest the answer that is expected; for instance, ‘Were you told
anything when you arrived at the police station?’ is better than ‘Were
you told that you could have a lawyer when you arrived at the police
station?’ as the latter is a closed question, while ‘Did the police fail to tell
you that you could have a lawyer?’ is an inappropriate leading question.
11 Monitors should never ask leading questions that
openly suggest that a detainee has been tortured or
otherwise ill-treated.

As a general rule, it is better to ask questions beginning with the words
‘who’, ‘what’, ‘where’, ‘when’, ‘how’ or ‘why’.

Visits to Police Stations

II

If a detainee displays obvious signs of injury, it is mandatory, and perfectly
proper, to ask how the injuries occurred. Similarly, if medical information
in monitors’ possession suggests that the detainee has injuries that are
not visible, they should ask about these. However, no questions inviting an
allegation that a detainee has been tortured or ill-treated should be asked
unless there is evidence of this having occurred or the detainee indicates,
however obliquely, that this is the case.
Asking multiple questions at the same time should be avoided (e.g. ‘What
happened when you got to the police station; were you told you could have
a lawyer and someone informed that you had been arrested or were you just
searched and put into the cell?’) Questions like this will confuse detainees
and create the need for additional questioning as interviewees usually only
answer part of multiple questions.
There are many reasons why a detainee may give seemingly inconsistent
accounts: inconsistencies do not necessarily mean that a detainee is not
telling the truth (or, at least, that he or she is not trying to tell the truth).
Shock, trauma and disorientation can result in confusion. Moreover,
detainees may be trying to give ‘compliant’ answers: the answers that they
think monitors want to hear. If there are inconsistencies in a detainee’s
account, these should be probed. This can be done
•	
•	
68

by asking the same question in different ways,
by asking questions that seek to elicit more details,

Chapter II - Visits to Police Stations

•	
•	

by comparing answers to different questions on the same issue,
and/ or
by drawing attention to apparent contradictions in a neutral
manner.

Some information can also be cross-checked – with due regard to
confidentiality – in other interviews or other sources of information. However,
monitors should on no account accuse a detainee of lying. Information that
is not considered credible should simply be recorded as such.
It is essential to be methodical when gathering information. This can be
accomplished through
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	

planning and preparing carefully,
following the plan (unless there is a strong reason to deviate from it),
ensuring that questions are asked in a logical sequence,
allowing time for questions to be answered, and
linking and probing answers.

5.9. Closing interviews

II

As much care and time should be taken in closing an interview as was taken
in opening it. This is especially important if the content has been traumatic
and distressing for the detainee; for example, if it has dealt with allegations
of torture or other ill-treatment. Reopening old wounds can affect a
detainee’s psychological state so monitors should be alert to this possibility.
Sometimes detainees may ask monitors specific questions about their case.
On rare occasions, monitors may even be asked to deliver a message (often
an apparently innocuous one) to a friend or relative, or to carry out some
other seemingly simple or innocent task. Under no circumstances should
monitors agree to do so and they should be clear that this is prohibited.
Delivering messages on behalf of detainees may leave monitors open to
allegations of attempting to interfere with an investigation and/or the
69

Visits to Police Stations

An interview should be brought to a close when monitors feel that they
have obtained all the relevant information they can or if, at any stage, there
are indications that the detainee wishes to stop the interview. At the end of
the interview, the detainee should be asked if there is anything else he or
she wants to say. The detainee should then be thanked for his or her time.
Monitors may wish to repeat the assurances given previously about the
confidential nature of interviews.

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

course of justice. Thus, it may damage the credibility of the visiting body
as a whole. As outside experts, monitors may also be asked by detainees to
comment or proffer advice about their case. It is crucial to realise that giving
any such advice would go beyond the monitors’ mandate; this must also be
made clear to detainees if the issue arises.
If detainees indicate that they wish to make a formal complaint about their
treatment by the police or about their conditions of detention, depending
on their mandate monitors should either
•	
•	

advise detainees to contact the appropriate ombudsman’s office or
similar independent complaints mechanism, or
refer detainees directly to one or more of these bodies.

With detainees’ consent, it may be appropriate for monitors to notify the
officer in charge of the facility that one or more detainees wish to make
complaints.18

II

On closing the interview, it is important that monitors ensure that detainees
are not left with any false expectations; they should not be left with the
impression that their individual situation is going to improve as a direct
result of the monitors’ visit. However, they should be left with the impression
that they have made a useful contribution to the work of the visiting team.
In some contexts, especially where the monitoring body has a permanent
presence in the country, it may prove useful to give detainees the contact
numbers of the monitoring team or the monitoring body’s main office.

Visits to Police Stations

6. Interviews with police staff and others
Police officers are an important source of information for monitors. The
information they provide is a key element in the triangulation process as it
helps to provide a comprehensive understanding of the place visited. It is
crucial that the visiting team takes every opportunity to talk to the police,
especially junior officers, showing empathy at all times. Whenever possible,
interviews should be conducted in private, on the same basis as those
conducted with detainees; however, it is often better to conduct interviews
with police staff in a spontaneous and casual manner, rather than a formal
one.
18	 It is good practice for monitoring bodies, particularly NPMs, to distinguish between
preventive monitoring and complaints-based functions. Preventive monitoring is about
identifying systemic flaws rather than addressing individual cases (although these cases
will inform monitors’ work).

70

Chapter II - Visits to Police Stations

It is also important to explore police officers’ opinions about the functioning
of the facilities. These may well differ from what monitors were told during
the initial talk with the person in charge. The way officers perceive their
work, and the everyday challenges they face, may reveal both positive and
negative systemic patterns.
Monitors will often find that officers initially display a degree of wariness;
on occasion, they may even be hostile. It is essential that monitors exercise
the same skills with the police as they do with detainees to gain their
confidence and establish trust. Monitors are almost always given a list of
complaints ranging from low pay to overwork, or from a lack of resources
to difficulties with pressure being exerted by senior officers to ‘get results’.
Such systemic factors increase stress levels and bad working conditions,
which may increase the risk that detainees will be ill-treated.
As well as putting questions to the police, monitors should welcome and
encourage the police to put questions to the visiting team. The police may
ask slightly cynical questions such as ‘What about our human rights?’ The
visiting team should explain that they are just as concerned about these
as they are about the human rights of detainees; it is important that police
officers are convinced that monitors are not ‘the enemy’. The police should
be encouraged to see that human rights are not designed to make their jobs
more difficult but, rather, are a central and essential element of their daily
professional activities.

II

Finally, monitors must remember that most police officers choose this
career path for honourable reasons and that they want to do a good and
professional job; part of the role of monitoring bodies is to help them do so.
Visits to Police Stations

11 Monitors should keep in mind that police staff may also
incur the risk of sanctions or reprisals from superior officers for
having been in communication with independent monitors.
The team should therefore take all appropriate measures to
protect police staff from any form of retaliation resulting from
their involvement in a visit.

71

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

Key questions to ask staff
•	

•	
•	

•	

•	
•	
•	

II

•	
•	

Visits to Police Stations

•	
•	
•	
•	
•	

•	
•	

72

How many staff are working in the police station (i) at the time
of the visit and (ii) in total? What is the usual ratio of staff to
detainees?
What ranks are involved in the different parts of the detention
process?
How many female members of staff are there (i) at the time of
the visit and (ii) in total? What is the usual ratio of female staff
to detainees? What levels of authority do female staff hold?
What happens if a female detainee is brought to the police
station when there is no female member of staff in the police
station (e.g. during the weekend)?
What are the procedures for shift changes? How is information
exchanged between shifts?19
What procedures are employed when a detainee is first
brought into custody?
What are the procedures for dealing with high numbers of
detainees coming into custody at peak times?
What are the procedures regarding medical examinations?
What are the latest ministerial circulars/memorandums from
headquarters and/or the most recent regulations?
What are the standard rules on the use of force?
What methods of de-escalation are used before force is used?
How do police staff describe their contact with detainees?
Are detainees informed about complaints procedures? If so,
how?
What arrangements are in place for persons with mental/
learning disabilities or other forms of physical/sensory
disability?
How often do police staff check on the detainees in the
detention area? Are these checks recorded?
Can custody officers hear what is happening in the cells?? If
an officer hears a call from a detainee, how should the officer
respond according to procedure? Is this procedure followed in
practice?

Chapter II - Visits to Police Stations

•	
•	
•	
•	

What are the most challenging problems facing staff?
How would staff describe a typical working day?
What is the average salary? When do staff members receive
their salary? Does it arrive on time?
Is in-service training provided?

Finally, many types of staff may be employed in police stations: not all will be in
charge of custody. Some may not have any direct dealings with custody. There
may be investigators, medical doctors, nurses, psychologists and other types
of staff in a specific police station. Although in most cases medical staff do
not work permanently at a specific police station, those that do have dealings
with police stations generally hold important information about the stations
they do work at. These people are worth interviewing if present during a visit.
Similarly, other individuals present during the visit who do not work for the
police (e.g. detainees’ family members, chaplains, members of other visiting
organisations, and suppliers) can also prove to useful sources of information.19

7. Specific issues to be taken into consideration

II

7.1. Healthcare

Visits to Police Stations

It is unusual for full time healthcare staff, such as doctors or nurses, to be
stationed at a police station unless the installation is particularly large or is
located within a large police headquarters complex, in which case healthcare
staff may be present primarily to attend to police officers. As healthcare staff
are unlikely to be present at the time of an unannounced visit, monitors may
decide to ask the police officer in charge if any regular healthcare staff can
be called to meet the visiting team at the police station. Another option is
to visit healthcare staff elsewhere, where they may feel able to speak more
freely. Inevitably, the best interlocutor with regard to healthcare personnel
will be the medical member of the visiting team, if there is one.
7.1.1. Medical examinations
In a custody setting, a doctor may be asked to see a detainee for two main
reasons. First, doctors may be asked
•	

to attend an emergency, or

19	 For example, is a briefing given about any detainee who might require additional
protection or different treatment, such as a detainee with disabilities for whom reasonable
accommodations might be required, or detainees who have special dietary needs?

73

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

•	

to assess an existing or suspected illness to determine whether
there is any immediate need for medication, other treatment or
transfer to a health facility.

It may be that the police generally initiate such requests. However, monitors
should determine whether, if detainees have requested to see a doctor, these
requests were promptly acted upon and also whether detainees had a say in
their choice of doctor (e.g. often female detainees prefer to see a female doctor).
Second, in some jurisdictions doctors may be asked to act in a forensic capacity
to assess detainees in relation to the reasons for arrest; for example, doctors
may be asked to assess the presence (and type) of injuries allegedly sustained in
an assault, signs of intoxication, or whether there is evidence of sexual assault.
Monitors should ask to see the room in which medical examinations
take place. They should also note what equipment is available. Medical
examinations should take place in private and without the use of any form of
restraint. If there are exceptional and pressing security concerns in a particular
case, then the police might remain within call, or even within sight, but out
of hearing of the examination. All this information should be cross-checked
during interviews in private and through the analysis of files and registers.

II

7.1.2. Healthcare staff
Usually, healthcare for detainees held in police stations is provided

Visits to Police Stations

•	
•	
•	

by local general practitioners,
by medical officers who are called to visit the police station on a
case by case basis, or
by medical officers from local health clinics or hospitals to which
detainees may be transported in case of a need for further
assessment or treatment.

In some jurisdictions, nurses may be the first point of contact between
detainees and the healthcare system; however, detainees should be allowed
to request assistance from, and/or to refer to, the doctors who act as the
nurses’ supervisors.
In some countries, the police have their own healthcare service; if so, police
healthcare staff may also be responsible for attending to detainees. Monitors
should determine to whom the healthcare staff report and whether they are
independent from the police. Healthcare staff working under the Ministry
of Health are more likely to be independent than those working under the
same ministry as the police.
74

Chapter II - Visits to Police Stations

In any case, it is important to check whether healthcare staff have training
for dealing with the particular issues that arise in police custody; for instance,
healthcare staff should have training about
•	
•	

how to deal with mentally disturbed individuals and drug users, and
the medical documentation of torture and other ill-treatment.20

7.1.3. Referrals to healthcare professionals
The custody register should include the date and time that the custody
officer, or the detainee him or herself, requested a consultation with a
doctor. Similarly, the date and time that the custody officer requested a
consultation with other health professionals, such as mental health services
or drug treatment programmes, should be noted. The date and time of
the healthcare consultation itself should be noted by the custody officer,
as should the details of any transfer to, and return from, a local healthcare
centre, hospital or other facility. Monitors should seek to cross-check these
details (and whether consultations and/or transfers actually took place),
including with detainees still present in the police station.
The team should enquire about the procedures in place in the event of
a medical emergency, such as if a detainee’s health requires an urgent
transfer to the nearest hospital. The team should also ask about when the
last such case occurred and how it was handled. Similarly, monitors should
ask if there have been any deaths in custody in the last year or since the last
monitoring visit. It is important to establish what the established procedures
are for investigating any deaths in custody are and what the findings of any
such investigations were.

II

Visits to Police Stations

7.1.4. Medical records
Doctors and nurses who are asked to see detainees must maintain their own
accurate, contemporaneous medical records. These records should be kept
confidential since they may well be irrelevant to the individual’s custody. The
police should not be able to access these medical records. Therefore, monitors
may need to contact the relevant healthcare staff in order to review these
records. However, in some jurisdictions there may be a computerised system
of police records in which medical records can be held in a secure, passwordprotected area that can only be accessed by healthcare professionals.
20	See The Istanbul Protocol: Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Professional Training
Series N°8), Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Geneva, 1999 (revised
2004). Available at http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/training8Rev1en.pdf

75

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

When acting in their more traditional doctor-patient roles, doctors should
explain to detainees that only the limited health information that is necessary
to safeguard their well-being during detention will be divulged to the
police; for example, doctors should tell the police if a detainee is a diabetic
and must eat regularly and/or have daily insulin injections. The police may
keep a separate register or make notes on individuals’ custody files when
detainees need medication or other specific treatment prescribed by a
doctor. This is not the same as a medical record; rather, it should represent a
practical tool to be used by the police to ensure that detainees receive their
medication or special diet.
When acting in a forensic capacity, doctors are essentially gathering
medical evidence that may be used in judicial proceedings; doctors should
explain to detainees that this information will be treated differently from
other personal health information. Depending on the laws of the country,
this information will be given to the police and/or the judicial authorities;
therefore, it may become public in any future court proceedings.
7.1.5. Medicine stock and first aid supplies

Visits to Police Stations

II

As healthcare staff are not usually based in police stations, any medication
held for specific detainees should be clearly labelled with the detainee’s
name, and the amount and frequency of the prescribed dosage. All
medications should be kept in a locked cabinet. The key must be available
within the police station at all times of the day and night, including during
weekends and public holidays.
A first aid kit should also be kept in the police station; this must be easily
accessible. In those countries with the resources, heart defibrillators may
also be kept. If so, police officers should be trained in their use: moreover, a
trained officer should be on duty at all times of the day and night, including
at weekends and during public holidays.
7.1.6. Allegations of torture and other ill-treatment
Doctors and nurses responsible for examining detainees may examine
persons who have been subjected to torture or other ill-treatment,
including sexual violence, as well as those subjected to violence from other
detainees. Healthcare professionals are under professional and ethical
obligations to document any physical or psychological signs or symptoms
of ill-treatment and/or torture, not only when a patient complains directly
of ill-treatment but also when a doctor or nurse suspects that ill-treatment
has occurred. Critically, doctors and nurses are also under obligations to
76

Chapter II - Visits to Police Stations

report their findings and suspicions. Their internal reporting mechanisms
should protect the identity of the victim and all those involved in exposing
cases of ill-treatment. However, all parties should be aware that any medical
documentation of torture or other ill-treatment may be used in future
criminal proceedings.
Monitors should assess the extent to which medical personnel are aware
of their responsibilities in this regard and what, if any, relevant reporting
mechanisms have been established by law and/or the regulations governing
the place of detention. In this regard, monitors should specifically examine
how any relevant medical reports and other evidence (e.g. medical tests) are
handled and stored with regard to confidentiality and the protection of the
victim. Monitors should also enquire when reporting mechanisms were last
used and what the outcomes of the relevant cases were.
11 See Chapter III, Section 2.3

7.2. Other issues
7.2.1. Safety and Security
Monitors have a duty to be conscious of safety and security issues throughout
visits to police stations, especially when in contact with detainees. They
should be alert to dangers to their own and colleagues’ safety and security,
as well as that of detainees, police officers and members of the public.

II

These simple rules are designed to minimise the risk of incidents:

•	
•	

•	

•	

Monitors should always make sure that they know where the other
members of the team are or intend to go.
When interviewing a detainee, monitors should ensure, as far as
possible, that they are nearer to the door than the detainee is.
If monitors have to leave the room during an interview but before it
is finished, they should take all their personal belongings with them,
even if they only leave for a few moments. Monitors should never leave
briefcases or small items (such as pens) in cells or interview rooms.
When walking to or from an interview room with a detainee, as a
general rule monitors should walk slightly behind the detainee and
allow him or her to go through doors first.
At the end of an interview, monitors should never let a detainee
leave the room alone. Instead, monitors should go out and

Visits to Police Stations

•	

77

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

•	
•	

•	

immediately notify the police that they have completed the
interview so the detainee can be returned to his or her cell.
Monitors should not give any items to detainees, particularly
matches, cigarette lighters or pens.
Monitors should avoid interviewing detainees who are under the
influence of alcohol, drugs or any other intoxicant. If there is a
medical person in the team, monitors should refer to him or her in
order to ascertain the detainee’s state if this is in question.
If monitors plan to interview several detainees at the same time
in a cell or other location, such as an exercise yard, they should
generally do so with a colleague.
11 The golden rule is to use common sense. Incidents are highly
unlikely to occur, so there is no need to be anxious or afraid.
Any nervousness that monitors display will communicate itself
to detainees and to the police, impairing the effectiveness of
monitors’ work.

7.2.2. Possible torture implements

Visits to Police Stations

II

While monitors are in police stations, they should be alert to what is going on
around them, especially in detention areas. If the police had any prior notice
of the visiting team’s arrival, it is likely that anything obviously incriminating
will have been removed. However, this is not always the case and articles
such as blindfolds, baseball bats and electric cables used to beat detainees
may be found by monitors.
The obvious things to look for are weapons and possible torture implements.
Monitors should ask for the presence of any such objects to be explained,
especially if seen in
•	
•	
•	

detention areas,
rooms detainees are likely to visit at any time during their detention,
or
investigators’ offices.

If an item has been seized for evidence it will normally bear a label or some
other identifying mark. If it does not, monitors should ask when it was seized
and in what circumstances. Monitors should regard with scepticism any
excuse that officers have ‘forgotten’ or ‘not yet got around’ to completing
the necessary paperwork to label objects as evidence.
78

Chapter II - Visits to Police Stations
11 There is no exhaustive list of implements that may be used
to inflict physical or other ill-treatment. Monitors should be
constantly on the lookout, staying alert throughout the visit
to any unexpected information, observations or insights,
especially when interviewing detainees in private.

7.2.3. Witnessing police interviews
There may be occasions when monitors are invited, usually by a senior
officer, to witness an investigator interviewing a suspect. The visiting
team should always decline to do so. If the interview has already started,
monitors will interrupt the flow. If it has not started, it is highly unlikely
that the investigator will welcome the presence of monitors. Monitors will
not only be a distraction for the investigator but also for the suspect and
his or her lawyer, if present. It is not monitors’ role to interfere with the
investigative process. Furthermore, monitors should keep in mind that they
may become witnesses, and thus eligible to be called to give evidence in
criminal proceedings, if they attend an interview.
If monitors feel that it is necessary to observe an interview for any reason,
in those countries where interviews with suspects are recorded by video or
audio means recordings will usually be kept at the police station and may
be available to the visiting body. As a rule, viewing or listening to recordings
offers a much better way forwards for the purposes of preventive monitoring.

II

8. Final talk with the head of the police station
Visits to Police Stations

The monitoring team should always have a final meeting with the station
commander. Often, the team will give some indication of their impressions
regarding their findings. However, these meetings may simply be used to
formally end visits when monitors do not want to raise any issues at this
stage. It is understandable and perfectly proper that monitors will not wish
to commit themselves to a firm view until they have had time to reflect and
discuss their findings with colleagues. However, it will be frustrating for the
police – and even impolite – if monitors arrive, carry out their visit, and then
simply depart without giving any feedback at all.
If the monitors are going to be critical of senior officers as a result of what
they have observed, it is essential not to express criticisms in front of junior
officers. Police institutions are disciplined, quasi-military organisations:
admonishing senior officers in front of their subordinates will not be
well-received.
79

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

If the main findings and recommendations are to be addressed to the
detaining authorities in a formal report, the final talk is an opportunity
to raise the most pressing issues and/or to explain the monitoring body’s
reporting procedures again. However, monitors should endeavour to
use this talk to strengthen relations with the police by emphasising the
cooperative approach inherent in preventive monitoring.
11 At all times during final talks, monitors must keep in mind
the principle to ‘do no harm’. They should be cautious when
discussing any information that could be used to work out
the identity of the person who provided the information,
especially when this is a particular detainee. Possible sanctions
or reprisals against detainees are to be avoided at all costs.

Part C. After a visit
Visits do not represent an end in themselves, but rather the first step in
the long-term process of improving both the treatment of detainees and
the conditions of detention through cooperative interaction with the
authorities.

Visits to Police Stations

II

There are two very important post-visit activities that monitors should
undertake. The first is to reflect on the team’s performance during the visit.
This is as important as reflecting on the findings of the visit. Each team and
each group of monitors should debrief after every visit. Future performance
will be improved if monitors have individually thought about, and discussed
as a team, the good and bad aspects of their last visit. The second key task is
to draw up a visit report and to make recommendations. This task should be
completed shortly after the visit. The report should then be submitted to the
person in charge of the place of detention as well as to higher authorities,
if this is deemed appropriate. Reports will have more credibility with the
police and other interested parties if they are submitted promptly. Another
common strategy is to draft an internal report that will not be transmitted
to the police authorities but, instead, will inform a general report, based on
a series of visits, that will be published or at least shared with the relevant
authorities and individual facilities.
11 If monitors have suspicions that detainees are at risk of
reprisals or sanctions following contact with the visiting
body, careful consideration should be given to carrying out
a follow-up visit to the same police station shortly after the
80

Chapter II - Visits to Police Stations
first visit. If this unlikely to be effective because the relevant
detainees have been released or transferred to another
custodial setting, monitors may try to visit them in their new
location in order to ascertain the situation.

Reports
Visits should be followed by credible reports addressed to the relevant
authorities. Reports should include practical recommendations for
change. The implementation of these recommendations should be closely
monitored.
The degree of confidentiality of reports will vary, depending on visiting
bodies’ strategies and their binding obligations towards the State concerned.
Reports may be confidential, public, or public with confidential annexes. It
may also be possible to submit a report for comments by the relevant State
before making it public.
11 Visiting mechanisms should always make absolutely certain
that detainees’ personal details are mentioned only with
their express consent. They should also ensure that general
communications and the content of reports (including visit,
thematic and annual reports) do not jeopardise the safety of
any individual.

II

1. Internal reporting

Visiting teams should usually write an individual visit report, in a standard
format. These, and any notes taken during visits that are written up with
reports, contribute to the institutional memory of the visiting body; they
constitute a useful starting point for organising and preparing for future visits.

81

Visits to Police Stations

As with visits to other kinds of places of detention, the information gathered
during visits to police stations should be analysed, organised and filed in such
a way that it can be used as efficiently as possible. Coherent and systematic
filing of information will enable visiting teams to identify reference points
and indicators regarding the evolution, over time, of the conditions of
detention in police stations that are regularly visited. Eventually, it will
also provide monitoring mechanisms with a comprehensive overview of
thematic issues or patterns that concern different police stations.

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

Internal reports should include, at the very least:
•	
•	
•	

•	

general information about the police station,
general information about the nature of the visit,
the key information obtained during the visit (e.g. the main
problems identified, follow up actions that need to be undertaken,
and points to verify during the next visit), and
confidential information that is not intended to be shared externally
but needs to be recorded for use in relation to possible follow-up visits.

2. Visit reports

II

Reports are probably the most important tool that a visiting body has at its
disposal for protecting detained persons and improving their situation. Visit
reports that cover one visit to one police station should present the principal
facts and issues arising from the visit, as well as any important points arising
from the final talk with the head of the establishment. These types of visit
reports can be relatively brief and should be sent shortly after the visit. This
will reinforce the dialogue with the authorities by providing formal, written
feedback. These visit reports should also be sent in a timely manner to the
authorities in charge of the facility visited in order for
•	

Visits to Police Stations

•	

the recommendations to be disseminated so that they may be
implemented, and
the monitoring body to be taken seriously and seen as professional
by the police.

Monitoring bodies should discuss the confidentiality of visit reports
thoroughly and regularly; systematic publication may undermine
monitoring bodies’ constructive dialogue with the authorities. For this
reason, some monitoring bodies initially transmit their reports confidentially
to the authorities; these reports are made public only later on, with the
authorities’ reply or position added.
Visit reports should contain a chapter with general information, including
(at a minimum):
•	 details about the composition of the visiting team,
•	 the date and time of the visit,
•	 the specific objectives of the visit, and
•	 a discussion of how information was gathered and checked before,
during and after the visit.
82

Chapter II - Visits to Police Stations

The substantive part of the report should be divided thematically, rather
than chronologically. It should clearly present, at a minimum, the principal
concerns about:
•	 the treatment of detainees,
•	 the protective measures employed,
•	 the material conditions encountered, and
•	 issues concerning police personnel.
For each theme, the report should:
•	 describe the objective situation observed,
•	 offer an analysis of the risks, and
•	 provide recommendations.
Reports should always offer an analysis of the findings in the light of the
relevant international human rights standards or other relevant documents.
Reports should also highlight examples of good practice and mention
aspects of the conditions of detention that are adequate. This helps to
consolidate a cooperative approach, demonstrates impartiality, and
smoothes the way for negative points to be more readily accepted.

3. Thematic reports
Post-visit reporting practices also include thematic reports. These usually
relate to several police stations, but focus on a single issue or set of issues
(e.g. access to a lawyer or abuses related to searches). In many cases, the
issues identified as a result of visits will not relate to a single police station
but will concern systemic deficiencies. Thus, a particular problem observed
in one police station might reveal fault-lines originating from
•	

•	

the institutional culture of the police (e.g. from pervasive issues
with corruption, ethnic profiling, disregard for gender sensitivity,
or established patterns of ill-treatment and torture) or
particular branches of the police (e.g. drug squads).
83

II

Visits to Police Stations

When reporting on allegations of torture, ill-treatment or any situation
the visiting team has not witnessed, great caution should be taken. The
terminology adopted should clearly differentiate between what ‘is’ and
what is alleged or reported (i.e. between the facts and claims or reports).
In this regard, the core objective should be to encourage the authorities to
take effective measures to investigate claims, apply sanctions if appropriate,
and take all steps necessary to prevent repetition.

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

Thematic reports should look beyond visits themselves to holistically
embrace systemic problems. Reports that do not ‘point a finger’ at particular
police stations tend to encourage systemic reform rather than the mere
application of sanctions against the particular station(s) identified.

4. Annual reports
Many mechanisms that visit police installations are also in charge of visiting
other facilities. This is the case for NPMs established under the OPCAT. For
them, and for other bodies, key findings regarding conditions of detention
in police stations will most likely be included in a broader, annual report.21
When visit reports are published regularly, the substantive part of the annual
report may synthesise key issues in relation to different types of places of
detention (e.g. police stations) or it may analyse cross-cutting thematic
issues. Usually, a separate section of an analytical rather than factual nature
will be dedicated to the conditions of detention and treatment of detainees
in police stations.

5. Drafting recommendations22
The quality and usefulness of the recommendations developed following
visits to places of detention can be assessed against the ten interrelated and
mutually reinforcing criteria of the double SMART model.

Visits to Police Stations

II

21	 Under Art. 23 of the OPCAT, States Parties are obligated “to publish and disseminate the
annual reports of the NPM”. Available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cat-one.htm
22	 The issue of how to draft recommendations is discussed in depth in
Making Effective Recommendations (Detention Monitoring Briefing N°1),
APT, Geneva, November 2008. Available at http://www.apt.ch/index.
php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=268&Itemid=259&lang=en

84

Chapter II - Visits to Police Stations

Specific: Each recommendation should address only one specific issue
Measurable: Evaluating the implementation of each recommendation
should be as easy as possible.

Achievable: Each recommendation should be realistic and feasible.
Results-oriented: The actions suggested should lead to concrete results.
Time-bound: Each recommendation should mention a realistic
23

+

timeframe for implementation.

Solution-suggestive:

Wherever possible, recommendations should
propose credible solutions.

Mindful

of prioritisation, sequencing and risks: When there are
many recommendations, urgent ones should be dealt with first. Less
urgent ones may be reserved for subsequent reports.

Argued: Recommendations should be based on high-quality, objective
evidence and analysis. They should refer to relevant standards.

Real-cause responsive: Recommendations should address the causes

II

of problems, rather than the symptoms.

Targeted: Recommendations should be directed to specific institutions
and/or actors rather than to ‘the authorities’ so that responsibility for
implementing them is clear.

Visits to Police Stations

23

23	 On occasion, it can also be useful to include recommendations that are not necessarily
achievable in the short term but might inspire a long-term strategy. Nevertheless, the
general rule is that recommendations should be realistic and achievable.

85

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

Example of a poorly drafted recommendation on strip searches
Strip searches should be used proportionately, especially in regard to
women.
SMART version
Body searching should only be resorted to when strictly necessary
and in accordance with the principles of necessity, reasonableness
and proportionality. Strip searches should be conducted in a two-step
procedure in order to avoid the person being entirely naked at any time.
As stated in Rule 19 of the UN Rules for the Treatment of Women
Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders (i.e. the
‘Bangkok Rules’), searches conducted on women “shall only be carried
out by women staff who have been properly trained”.
Searches that do not conform to these principles should cease
immediately.
The Chief of the Police should adopt and disseminate within six months
an internal regulation clearly describing the modality, responsibility
and monitoring requirements for body searches.

Visits to Police Stations

II

The Interior Ministry and the Police National Training Institute should
ensure the police academy training curriculum includes the proper way
to conduct strip searches. This should also be included in continuing
education modules. These additions/ changes to the curricula should
be accomplished before the start of the next training year (i.e. within
ten months).
In practice, it can be difficult to draft recommendations that comply with
all ten double SMART criteria. However, visiting bodies should take the
time to consider all the criteria carefully. Drafting good recommendations
is essential: good recommendations provide a solid basis for ongoing
dialogue with the authorities. Moreover, visiting bodies can follow-up
more effectively with regard to the implementation of well-drafted
recommendations, especially when these include information that can later
serve as indicators of progress.

86

Chapter II - Visits to Police Stations

6. Following up on recommendations, including
through dialogue with other actors
Once visit reports have been submitted to the concerned authorities, it
is paramount to enter into dialogue regarding the implementation of
the reports’ recommendations. It is also essential that monitoring bodies
target the appropriate level within the hierarchy (i.e. police station, local or
regional authority, or ministry) or other relevant authority (e.g. the Ministry
of Justice or the Ministry of Health). Visiting bodies should also identify
other actors who can disseminate recommendations and/or assist with their
implementation.
The specific answers and general reactions that the authorities offer about
visit reports will help monitoring bodies to adapt their visiting programmes.
During subsequent visits, monitoring mechanisms should check whether
official replies to visit reports correspond to the situation on the ground.
They should also examine whether any measures or actions have been
taken as a result of the recommendations put forward in previous reports.
Monitoring bodies must find ways of establishing and maintaining a
dialogue with the authorities and other key actors. Reports are a good
way to sustain ongoing dialogue, but they are not sufficient. Additional
strategies may include
•	

•	

Regular meetings and roundtables with relevant authorities to
discuss monitoring bodies’ recommendations and other issues
related to police conduct and custody.
Reminding authorities that they have a duty to respond to the
reports and recommendations of some monitoring bodies;
moreover, they have a responsibility to respond within a reasonable
period of time. Ideally, this obligation to provide a feedback should
apply to all monitoring mechanisms working within the relevant
jurisdiction; moreover, it should be enshrined in national legislation
or other relevant documents (e.g. the national police code). It is
good practice to agree a time-frame for the implementation of
recommendations with the authorities; this often helps to ensure
a degree of commitment to bilateral dialogue.
Constructive and sustained dialogue with other key actors (e.g.
parliamentarians, civil society, regional or universal organisations,
or the media) who might play an important role in promoting the
implementation of recommendations. Other actors may turn out
87

Visits to Police Stations

•	

II

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

•	

to have major leverage in cases where the authorities demonstrate
unwillingness to consider reports and the recommendations they
put forward.
Discussions with other targeted actors (e.g. police trade unions and
staff associations).

Such practices help to establish and sustain constructive dialogue that
goes beyond particular visits and, instead, aims to influence decisions at
policy level. For example, if the monitoring body is well-known and trusted
by the authorities, it may eventually be consulted before laws are enacted
to ensure that new legislation is compliant with human rights standards.
Equally, monitoring bodies may become involved in important discussions
regarding, for example, the construction of new police installations to
ensure that these are built in line with international human rights law.

11 Being trusted by the relevant authorities leads to
monitoring bodies being consulted before policy decisions
are implemented. This is vital to the long-term success of
any preventive approach. The ideal is to act to promote the
overarching human rights involved, rather than to simply
react to specific incidents and issues relating to the police.

Visits to Police Stations

II

Monitoring bodies’ dialogue with relevant actors, and particularly with
the media, should form part of a broad communication strategy that
looks beyond the publication of reports. In other words, dialogue and
communication should not merely be reactive; in the long run, visiting
bodies will gain visibility and credibility through employing proactive,
multifaceted communication initiatives. Eventually, this may have a major
impact on the speed and effectiveness with which recommendations are
implemented.

88

Chapter III
International Standards Relating to
Police Powers and Police Custody

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

Chapter III can be used by readers as a stand-alone section. It provides
a practical framework stemming from the main universal and regional
standards relating to the police. The Chapter proposes practical
considerations and general guidance on specific aspects of monitors’ work,
before visits to police stations (i.e. when preparing for visits), during visits,
and after visits in order to follow-up effectively. The standards discussed
relate either to police custody or to detention generally insofar as they are
applicable to police custody.

International Standards

Police Detention: summary of main risk areas and safeguards1

III

The standards are divided into six categories representing the six key
overarching issues that visiting bodies should examine. Each is dealt with in
a different section of this chapter as follows:

1	

90

This schematic is not a precise representation of the detention process; rather, it presents
a generic vision of key stages, risks and safeguards.

Chapter III - International Standards

Treatment
Torture and other ill-treatment
Incommunicado detention
Use of force and firearms
Means of restraint
Arrest
Searches
Interrogations
Transfers
Police participation in forced expulsions
Fundamental
safeguards
Right to information
Notification of deprivation of liberty to
relatives or a third party
Access to a doctor
Access to a lawyer
International Standards

Legal procedures
Length of police custody
Access to a judge
Release in a verifiable manner
Procedural safeguards
Audio-video recording
Custody records
Complaints
Inspection and monitoring

III

Material conditions
Police personnel
Code of conduct
Recruitment
Training
Uniform and identification
91

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

In each section, there is a table where the most relevant standards are
quoted verbatim. Additional relevant standards are identified at the bottom
of the table. The table is followed by a comment that explores the practical
implications of the standards for monitoring bodies. Each section concludes
with a box of practical tips for monitors that can be used as a checklist
during interviews with detainees or the police.
Notes on the standards described below
This chapter does not contain an exhaustive list of all standards on detention
by the police; instead, it represents a selection of the most relevant ones.
The standards in the chapter include those set out in universal and regional
human rights treaties,2 universal and regional soft-law instruments3 (such
as declarations, resolutions, and principles), and guidelines and other
statements by universal and regional human rights bodies.

International Standards

Within each table, universal standards are given priority over regional
standards, binding standards over non-binding standards, and specific
standards over general standards. Where relevant, standards concerning
specific groups (e.g. women, juveniles or persons with disabilities) are
included at the end of the table.

III

Readers should note that international standards regarding the police
are still scarce. Therefore, there may be gaps in existing police standards.
Similarly, prison standards may be only partially applicable to police
detention. Monitors should keep this in mind when reading this chapter.
Prison standards are not entirely analogous to police detention (especially
initial apprehension) for various reasons:
2	

Treaties are only binding on states that have agreed to be bound by them through
ratification or accession. Nevertheless, even when a state has not agreed to be bound by
a particular treaty, the treaty can be cited as the international standard.

3	

“Soft-law is a term used to refer to documents which are not binding at international law (i.e.
whose status is less than that of a treaty concluded under the 1969 Vienna Convention on
the Law of Treaties). Examples include resolutions of bodies such as the General Assembly
and Human Rights Council, as well as action plans, codes of practice, guidelines, rules or
statements of principles produced by international or regional expert meetings. Treaty
bodies’ jurisprudence and concluding observations can also be considered soft law.
Such instruments and recommendations have an undeniable moral force and provide
practical guidance to States in their conduct. Their value rests on their recognition and
acceptance by a large number of States and, even without binding effect, they may be
seen as declaratory of broadly accepted goals and principles within the international
community.” Preventing Torture: An operational guide for national human rights
institutions, APT, Asia Pacific Forum and UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human
Rights, UN Doc. HR/PUB/10/1, Geneva, May 2010, p.5 (fn. 12). Available at http://www.apt.
ch/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=237&Itemid=250&lang=en

92

Chapter III - International Standards

•	

•	

Monitors should also consult relevant national laws, regulations and
standards. Many states have incorporated all or part of universal and/or
regional standards into domestic law. Indeed, domestic laws and standards
may prove more stringent than international law.
Neither regional nor national jurisprudence is included in this chapter in
order to preserve the objective of the manual to serve as a practical tool.
However, readers are encouraged to review the relevant jurisprudence
when making recommendations to the relevant authorities.

1. Treatment
Respect for the dignity of detained persons should be the fundamental
ethical value of those working in police stations and, equally, of visiting
bodies. This basic overriding principle is clearly stated in Article 10 of the
ICCPR: “All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity
and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.”
Above all, torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
are absolutely prohibited and cannot be justified under any circumstances.
Some measures that may amount to torture, or to cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment under certain circumstances, include
solitary confinement, the use of restraints, and the use of force and/or
firearms. This is why recourse to such measures must be accompanied
by a series of safeguards to ensure that they are not applied in a way that
amounts to torture or other ill-treatment. Visiting mechanisms should pay
particular attention to these issues.

93

1

Treatment

•	

The police have to deal with unknown counterparts, whereas even
newly admitted prisoners come with documentation; the lack of
information and the consequent unpredictability of the initial
police encounter increase the tension of the situation and the risk
on both sides.
At the outset of deprivation of liberty, the police are usually dealing
with a person (or persons) in a state of high tension. The volatility of
the initial police situation makes exercising control a more difficult
matter for the police than for prison staff.
The places where the police first deprive people of liberty tend to
be neither secure (from escape) nor safe (from harm). Police officers
may be on their own at the point of apprehension. Moreover, they
may be out in the street where they have to consider the risks to
other members of the public.

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

1.1. Torture and other ill-treatment

1

Relevant standards
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without
his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.”
ICCPR, Art. 7

Treatment

“No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a
threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency,
may be invoked as a justification of torture. An order from a superior
officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of
torture.”
UNCAT, Art. 2

“Each State Party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a
prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground
to believe that an act of torture has been committed in any territory
under its jurisdiction.”
UNCAT, Art. 12

“[All persons] shall be protected from any kind of threats and acts of
torture, execution, forced disappearance, cruel, inhuman, or degrading
treatment or punishment, sexual violence, corporal punishment,
collective punishment, forced intervention or coercive treatment, from
any method intended to obliterate their personality or to diminish their
physical or mental capacities.”
PBPA, Principle I

ÖÖSee also
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	
94

ICCPR, Art. 4, 10
UNCAT, Art. 1, 4, 13
BPP, Principle 6
CCLEO, Art. 2, 5
ECHR, Art. 3
Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, Art.
1, 2
ACHPR, Art. 4, 5

Chapter III - International Standards

•	
•	
•	
•	

•	

Arab Charter on Human Rights, Art. 8
ECPE, §36
SARPCCO Code of Conduct for Police Officials, Art. 4
Principles on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment, Art. 1, 2
UNGA resolution, A/RES/64/153, §6.

1

Disabled persons
Treatment

“States Parties shall take all effective legislative, administrative, judicial
or other measures to prevent persons with disabilities, on an equal
basis with others, from being subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment.”
CRPD, Art. 15(2)

Juveniles
“No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment. Neither capital punishment nor life
imprisonment without possibility of release shall be imposed for offences
committed by persons below eighteen years of age.”
CRC, Art. 37

ÖÖSee also
•	 RPJDL, Annex, §87(a)
Comment
The UNCAT defines torture as the intentional infliction of severe pain or
suffering, whether mental or physical; the pain or suffering must be inflicted
for a specific purpose, such as obtaining information or a confession from
the victim or a third party, or to punish, intimidate or coerce the victim
or a third party, or for discrimination of any kind. Furthermore, it must be
inflicted by, or with the consent or acquiescence of, State authorities or
other persons acting in an official capacity.
Torture can take very different forms, including electric shocks, beatings,
beating an individual on the soles of the feet, suspension in painful poses,
rape, suffocation, burning the victim with cigarettes, intimidation, mock
execution, or deprivation of food, sleep or communication.
95

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

1

The earliest stages of detention, and especially those involving arrest,
interrogation and investigation, are when the risks of torture and other
ill-treatment are highest. This is particularly the case in jurisdictions where
torture is practised as a means of securing confessions.

Treatment

Torture is one of the most difficult areas for monitors to handle, requiring careful
protocols, preparation and training. It is an extremely sensitive task to interview
people who have been subjected to torture; monitors visiting police stations
may encounter individuals who have been subjected to such acts very recently.
Dealing with allegations of torture
During interviews in private, monitors may receive allegations that refer
to treatment experienced during detainees’ arrest, transfer in a police
vehicle, or in police installations (e.g. during interrogations). However, some
detainees may not be willing to make allegations immediately, either as a
result of the trauma they have suffered or for fear of sanctions or reprisals.
Instead, monitors will often receive allegations relating to torture or other
ill-treatment that occurred in police custody once the detainee has been
released or transferred to another facility.
Persons who have been subjected to torture or other ill-treatment often
find it very difficult to talk about these extremely traumatic experiences. The
collection of information about these experiences requires great sensitivity
on the part of visitors. They should receive special training in
•	
•	
•	

handling allegations,
developing a fine sense of how far to go with their questions, and
understanding when specialist intervention is necessary.

It is often difficult to strike the right balance between obtaining information
and avoiding the possibility of re-traumatising interviewees.
It is important for medical personnel on the visiting team to document
allegations of torture or other ill-treatment as soon as possible. This should
be done through a medical examination that encompasses both physical
and psychological evidence. However, it is not the role of monitors to decide
whether the treatment that a detainee alleges he or she has experienced
constitutes torture.
For the protection of victims, it is crucial that monitors ask if and how they
can use allegations and/or other information. Provided that the monitoring
body has the mandate to pursue complaints, allegations of ill-treatment
should be transmitted (barring any serious doubts as to their veracity) to
96

Chapter III - International Standards

the administrative or penal authorities responsible for investigating them.
Precautions regarding representations made in the name of individuals
should be taken to ensure that detainees and former detainees alike do
not suffer sanctions or reprisals. Monitors should establish procedures for
transmitting allegations that do not endanger either victims or alleged
perpetrators.

1

Preventive monitoring bodies should generally refer such cases to other
structures (such as the relevant ombudsman’s office) that have a specific
mandate to deal with individual allegations.
Treatment

Prohibition on the use of statements acquired through torture4
Statements made as a result of torture must not be admitted or used as
evidence in any legal proceeding, except for those against persons accused
of torture. This prohibition includes statements made by defendants and
other witnesses.
The presence of a lawyer from the first moment of detention, and especially
throughout interrogations, is a crucial safeguard against forced confessions.
In 2003, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture (SRT) recommended that
confessions made outside the presence of a lawyer or judge should have no
“probative value in court, except as evidence against those who are accused
of having obtained the confession by unlawful means.”5
Inter-detainee violence
Monitors should remember that the police duty of care includes the
responsibility to protect detainees from each other. Acts of violence (e.g.
beatings and sexual violence) by fellow detainees should not be ignored.
Inter-detainee violence is often not reported by victims for fear of reprisals.
Persons from ethnic, racial and other minority groups are often at particular
risk of inter-detainee violence. In some jurisdictions and facilities, staff
may tolerate inter-detainee violence, considering that it is the detainees’
‘business’ to deal with as they may. However, monitors should note that
acquiescence by the police may amount to torture or other ill-treatment. In
small police installations, the police may also put forward the argument that
4	

See, inter alia, Art. 15 of the UNCAT, Article 14(3g) of the ICCPR, and § 41 of the UN Human
Rights Commissions’ General Comment N°32 (UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/32, 23 August 2007.
Available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/type,GENERAL,HRC,,478b2b2f2,0.html).

5	

General Recommendations of the SRT, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2003/68, 17 December 2002,
§26(e). Available at http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/E.
CN.4.2003.68.En?Opendocument

97

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

1

the limited number of cells means that it is impossible to avoid any type of
inter-detainee violence. This is not a valid excuse as it would be a breach of
the police’s duty of care. Similarly, financial and logistical arguments do not
justify any type of violence towards persons deprived of their liberty.
Tips for monitors
When torture or other ill-treatment is alleged, monitors should
generally gather the following types of information:

Treatment

•	
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	

the full identity of the person making the allegation and the
identity of the victim (if different).
details of the detaining authority.
the date, time and location of the ill-treatment.
details about the authority or authorities responsible for the
ill-treatment.
the circumstances of the ill-treatment.
details of any witness(es) to the ill-treatment.
a detailed description of the ill-treatment (including what
was done, how it was done, how long the ill-treatment lasted,
how often it occurred, and by whom it was inflicted) and the
physical and/or mental effect(s) on the victim.

If the visiting team includes medical personnel, they should also try to
document:
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	

98

physical evidence,
psychological evidence, and
any need for medical treatment.
If follow-up action taken or is ensuing, who has been informed
of the allegations and with what results?
Is it possible for detainees to lodge administrative, disciplinary
and/or criminal complaints?
Where a complaint was lodged, what has occurred? What were
the consequences for the perpetrator(s) and for the victim(s)?
Has the detainee who made the allegation authorised its
transmission? Did he or she place any restrictions on its
transmission?

Chapter III - International Standards

•	
•	
•	

Has there been any official response to the alleged incident?
Is the allegation an isolated case or can monitors identify a
pattern of ill-treatment?
If patterns are identified, do these relate to specific risk
moments (such as apprehensions, transfers or interrogations),
or to a specific police unit or police station?

1

6

Treatment

1.2. Incommunicado detention6
Relevant standards
“(1) No one shall be held in secret detention.
(2) Without prejudice to other international obligations of the State Party
with regard to the deprivation of liberty, each State Party shall, in its
legislation: […]
(c) Guarantee that any person deprived of liberty shall be held solely in
officially recognized and supervised places of deprivation of liberty”.
ICPAPED, Art. 17(1-2)

[States should] “Prohibit the use of unauthorised places of detention and
ensure that it is a punishable offence for any official to hold a person in a
secret and/or unofficial place of detention.”

RIG, Part II, §23

“A detained or imprisoned person […] shall be given adequate opportunity
to communicate with the outside world, subject to reasonable conditions
and restrictions as specified by law or lawful regulations.”
BPP, Principle 19
6	

For the sake of simplicity, this section refers only to incommunicado detention. However,
monitors should be aware that ‘unofficial places of detention’, ‘incommunicado
detention’ and ‘secret detention’ are different, though closely, related Concepts.
‘Incommunicado detention’ is understood in this manual as comprising situations
when “the detainee cannot communicate with anyone other than his or her captors and
perhaps his co-detainees.” In some cases ‘incommunicado detention’ includes cases
where the detainee “has some direct contact with truly independent judicial authorities.”
Incommunicado, Unacknowledged and Secret Detention Under International Law, APT,
Geneva, March 2006, pp.1-2. Available at http://www.apt.ch/index.php?option=com_
docman&task=doc_download&gid=280&Itemid=260&lang=en. ‘Secret detention’
is when detention is both incommunicado and unacknowledged. It need not occur
in a secret or unofficial place of detention in order to be defined as ‘secret detention’.
Joint Study on Global Practices in Relation to Secret Detention in the Context of Countering
Terrorism, UN Doc. A/HRC/13/42, 19 February 2010, §8-10.

99

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

“The law shall prohibit, in all circumstances, incommunicado detention of
persons and secret deprivation of liberty since they constitute cruel and
inhuman treatment. Persons shall only be deprived of liberty in officially
recognized places of deprivation of liberty.”

1

PBPA, Principle III(1)

ÖÖSee also

Treatment

•	
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	

ICPAPED, Art. 18, 19, 2, 22
UN Declaration on the Protection of all Persons from Enforced
Disappearance, Art. 10(1)
UNGA Resolution, UN Doc. A/RES/66/150, §22
Human Rights Committee General Comment N°20 on Art. 7
ICCPR, §11
Human Rights Committee General Comment N°29 on Art. 4
ICCPR, §13(b)
Report of the SRT, UN Doc. A/59/324, §22
Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of
Judges and Lawyers, UN Doc. A/63/271, §24-25
Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons,
Art. XI(1)
Joint Study on Global Practices in Relation to Secret Detention in
the Context of Countering Terrorism, UN Doc. A/HRC/13/42

ÖÖSee also standards related to solitary confinement
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	

BR, rule 22 (women)
RPJDL, Annex (juveniles), §67
Human Rights Committee General Comment N°20 on Art. 7
ICCPR, §6
Report of the SRT, UN Doc. A/66/268, III(A), III(C), IV(86)
CPT 21st General Report, CoE Doc. CPT/Inf (2011) 28, pp. 37-50
PBPA, Principle XXII

Comment
While police stations are usually officially recognised places of detention,
monitors may learn of secret or unofficial places within a police station
where people are also detained (e.g. a basement or secret room). Holding
100

Chapter III - International Standards

persons in unofficial places of detention is prohibited and cannot be
justified under any circumstances, including during an armed conflict or
state of emergency.7 In practice, however, where there is an armed conflict,
deprivation of liberty may initially occur in the field, then in temporary field
detention facilities and only subsequently in official places of detention.

1

Incommunicado detention may be permitted under extremely limited and
specific circumstances. At a minimum, such detention must be
•	
•	
•	
•	

specifically authorised by national legislation,
of very short duration,
demonstrably necessary and proportionate to specific, limited
purposes, and
supervised by a judge.

Detainees held incommunicado should be provided access to legal counsel
and to independent medical treatment.9 As the circumstances when
incommunicado detention are permitted are so narrow, monitors may want
to consult with legal counsel if they encounter persons whom they suspect
are being held incommunicado or whose detention is unacknowledged.
11 The issue of solitary confinement may not be as relevant for
police stations as it is for prisons or other longer-term custodial
settings. In most countries persons held in police custody will
be released or transferred to another official detention facility
7	

Joint Study on Global Practices in Relation to Secret Detention in the Context of Countering
Terrorism, UN Doc. A/HRC/13/42, 19 February 2010. Available at http://www2.ohchr.
org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/13session/A-HRC-13-42.pdf. See also Art. 17(1-2),
International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance,
adopted 20 December 2006, entered into force 23 December 2010. Available at http://
www2.ohchr.org/english/law/disappearance-convention.htm

8	

Joint Study on Global Practices in Relation to Secret Detention, §34-35. See also Human
Rights Committee General Comment N°20 on article 7 ICCPR, 10 March 1992, §11.
Available at http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/6924291970754969c12563ed0
04c8ae5?Opendocument

9	

Incommunicado, Unacknowledged and Secret Detention Under International
Law, APT, Geneva, 2 March 2006. Available at http://www.apt.ch/index.
php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=280&Itemid=260&lang=en

101

Treatment

Monitors may also encounter persons who, although detained in an official
part of the station, are being held incommunicado. Incommunicado detention
entails an increased risk of torture and other serious human rights abuses.
Indeed, it can, in and of itself, constitute torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment, not only for the detainee, but also for his or her family and friends.8

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide
within a period of a few days, depending on the national
legislation. Nevertheless, in some contexts, persons are held
in police custody for much longer than provided for by law.
Furthermore, in some countries, due to overcrowding in official
detention facilities, police detention facilities are used as
prisons. Relevant standards concerning solitary confinement
fully apply to police custody in these circumstances.

1

Tips for monitors
Treatment

•	
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	

Has the person been detained incommunicado? If so, for how
long and on what grounds?
Was the person brought promptly before a judge?
Has the person been able to communicate in private with a
lawyer?
Has the person been given the opportunity to communicate
with the outside world?
Is the person entitled to receive family visits?
If the person detained is a foreign national, has he or she been
given the opportunity to communicate with representatives of
his or her government?

1.3. Use of force and firearms
Relevant standards
“Law enforcement officials may use force only when strictly necessary
and to the extent required for the performance of their duty.
Commentary:

CCLEO, Art. 3

(a) This provision emphasizes that the use of force by law enforcement officials
should be exceptional; while it implies that law enforcement officials may be
authorized to use force as is reasonably necessary under the circumstances for
the prevention of crime or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders
or suspected offenders, no force going beyond that may be used.
(b) National law ordinarily restricts the use of force by law enforcement officials
in accordance with a principle of proportionality. It is to be understood that such
national principles of proportionality are to be respected in the interpretation
of this provision. In no case should this provision be interpreted to authorize the
use of force which is disproportionate to the legitimate objective to be achieved.
102

Chapter III - International Standards

(c) The use of firearms is considered an extreme measure. Every effort should
be made to exclude the use of firearms, especially against children. In general,
firearms should not be used except when a suspected offender offers armed
resistance or otherwise jeopardizes the lives of others and less extreme measures
are not sufficient to restrain or apprehend the suspected offender. In every
instance in which a firearm is discharged, a report should be made promptly to
the competent authorities.”

1

Treatment

“Law enforcement officials, in carrying out their duty, shall, as far as
possible, apply non-violent means before resorting to the use of force and
firearms. They may use force and firearms only if other means remain
ineffective or without any promise of achieving the intended result.”
BPUFF, §4

“Whenever the lawful use of force and firearms is unavoidable, law
enforcement officials shall:
(a) Exercise restraint in such use and act in proportion to the seriousness
of the offence and the legitimate objective to be achieved;
(b) Minimize damage and injury, and respect and preserve human life;
(c) Ensure that assistance and medical aid are rendered to any injured or
affected persons at the earliest possible moment;
(d) Ensure that relatives or close friends of the injured or affected person are
notified at the earliest possible moment.”
BPUFF, §5

“Rules and regulations on the use of firearms by law enforcement officials
should include guidelines that:
(a)  Specify the circumstances under which law enforcement officials
are authorized to carry firearms and prescribe the types of firearms and
ammunition permitted;
(b) Ensure that firearms are used only in appropriate circumstances and in
a manner likely to decrease the risk of unnecessary harm;
(c) Prohibit the use of those firearms and ammunition that cause
unwarranted injury or present an unwarranted risk;
(d)  Regulate the control, storage and issuing of firearms, including
procedures for ensuring that law enforcement officials are accountable
for the firearms and ammunition issued to them;
(e) Provide for warnings to be given, if appropriate, when firearms are to
be discharged;
103

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

(f) Provide for a system of reporting whenever law enforcement officials
use firearms in the performance of their duty.”

1

BPUFF, §11

“Law enforcement officials, in their relations with persons in custody
or detention, shall not use force, except when strictly necessary for
the maintenance of security and order within the institution, or when
personal safety is threatened.”
BPUFF, §15

Treatment

“Law enforcement officials, in their relations with persons in custody or
detention, shall not use firearms, except in self-defence or in the defence
of others against the immediate threat of death or serious injury, or
when strictly necessary to prevent the escape of a person in custody or
detention presenting the danger referred to in principle 9.”

BPUFF, §16

Electrical discharge weapons (EDW)
“The development and deployment of non-lethal incapacitating
weapons should be carefully evaluated in order to minimize the risk of
endangering uninvolved persons, and the use of such weapons should
be carefully controlled.”
BPUFF, Art. 3

“The CPT considers that the use of electric discharge weapons should
be subject to the principles of necessity, subsidiarity, proportionality,
advance warning (where feasible) and precaution. These principles
entail, inter alia, that public officials to whom such weapons are issued
must receive adequate training in their use. As regards more specifically
EDW capable of discharging projectiles, the criteria governing their use
should be directly inspired by those applicable to firearms.”
CPT standards, p.101, §69

ÖÖSee also
•	 SMR, §54
•	 BPUFF, §1
•	 Report by the SRT, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2006/6, §38
•	 Report by the SRT, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2004/56, §44
•	 ECPE, §37
•	 PBPA, Principle XXIII
•	 SARPCCO, Code of Conduct for Police Officials, Art. 3
104

Chapter III - International Standards

Comment
The use of force and firearms is one of the coercive powers of the police. As
the use of force and/or firearms entails risks of abuse, such measures can
only be applied legitimately when the principles of legality, necessity, and
proportionality are strictly observed.

1

Whenever force is used, whether at the time of arrest or during police custody,
monitors will face the challenge of assessing whether it was excessive.

Monitors should look at whether instructions and restrictions on the use
of force and firearms are included in police regulations. They should also
investigate what training staff members receive in control and restraint
techniques that would permit them to maintain control while avoiding both
injury to themselves or detainees and the use of force or firearms.
Any incidents involving the use of force or firearms should be reported in
writing, noted in a register, and investigated.
Tips for monitors
•	
•	
•	
•	

Are there regulations specifying when, to which members of
the police, and in which circumstances firearms are issued?
Are there regulations defining the types of firearms and
ammunition permitted/prohibited?
How is the control of storage and issuance of firearms and
ammunition regulated and managed in practice?
How frequent are incidents involving the use of force,
according to
‚‚ detainees,
‚‚ registers,
‚‚ staff, and

10	 Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, UN
Doc. A/HRC/17/28, 23 May 2011, pp.11-12. Available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/
bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/A-HRC-17-28.pdf

105

Treatment

From a holistic perspective, the visiting team should examine whether the
use of force and the use of firearms represent exceptional responses or the
norm in relation to particular scenarios. During private interviews, monitors
should seek to establish the extent of the use of force and firearms during
public demonstrations or gatherings (if applicable to the context).10

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

1

•	
•	
•	

Treatment

•	

‚‚ other sources?
How is the use of firearms reported?
Are there any procedures for ensuring that the police are held
accountable for the use of force and firearms?
Is there any evidence that excessive force has been used in
relation to any group in a situation of vulnerability?
If electrical discharge weapons are used, what safeguards are
in place? Are staff given specific training in their use?

1.4. Means of restraint
Relevant standards
“Instruments of restraint, such as handcuffs, chains, irons and straitjackets, shall never be applied as a punishment. Furthermore, chains or
irons shall not be used as restraints. Other instruments of restraint shall
not be used except in the following circumstances:
(a) As a precaution against escape during a transfer, provided that
they shall be removed when the prisoner appears before a judicial or
administrative authority;
(b) On medical grounds by direction of the medical officer;
(c) By order of the director, if other methods of control fail, in order to
prevent a prisoner from injuring himself or others or from damaging
property; in such instances the director shall at once consult the medical
officer and report to the higher administrative authority.”
SMR, §33

“The patterns and manner of use of instruments of restraint shall be
decided by the central prison administration. Such instruments must not
be applied for any longer time than is strictly necessary.”
SMR, §34

“The use of restraint techniques and/or instruments in order to control a
detainee may amount to torture or another form of ill-treatment when
they are applied in a degrading and painful manner. […] The use of
restraint techniques or devices shall never be made as a punishment.”
Report by the SRT, UN Doc. E/CN.4/ 2004/56, §45

106

Chapter III - International Standards

ÖÖSee also
•	
•	

1

BR, Rule 24
RPJDL, Annex, §63-65

Comment

Treatment

The use of restraints, like the use of force, is part of the coercive powers that
the police might have to resort to in the exercise of their duties. There is a
margin of discretion in the use of restraint in the initial period of deprivation
of liberty. This leeway is related to the current gap in international standards
regarding the use of restraints by the police specifically. However, once a
detainee reaches a safe setting, restraint must cease to be used as long as the
person is non-violent and is not posing a risk to others or to him or herself.
Some means such as shackles and irons are absolutely forbidden. Permitted
means of restraints should be resorted to only on an exceptional basis. They
should never be used as a punishment.
In single occupancy custody cells there can be no justification for restraint.
If a person is considered to be at risk of self-injury, he or she should be
medically assessed and removed to a more appropriate setting if necessary.
In multiple occupancy cells, if a person poses a risk, he or she should be
removed to a single occupancy cell where restraint will not be necessary.
Immediately following arrest and/or during transfers in police vehicles,
the police may use means of restraint in a way that may deliberately hurt
detainees (e.g. purposefully making handcuffs too tight on the wrists).
Although it may be difficult to verify this, it is clearly an example of a grey
area that should be examined by monitors.
The role of medical doctors in the use of coercive means is particularly
sensitive. The SMR and other rules mention that doctors can give advice on
certain measures on medical grounds. As made explicit by the CPT, in case
of the use of restraints detainees have a right to be examined immediately
by a doctor. Under no circumstances should this be interpreted as requiring
a medical doctor to attest that a detainee “is fit to undergo punishment”.11
Conducting interviews while prisoners are restrained will normally be
incompatible with the role of the visiting team in ensuring respect for
human dignity in places of detention.
11	 CPT Standards, CPT, CoE Doc. CPT/Inf/E (2002) 1, 2002 (revised 2011), p. 47, §73. Available
at http://www.cpt.coe.int/En/documents/eng-standards.pdf

107

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

Tips for monitors

1

•	
•	
•	
•	

Treatment

•	

•	
•	

In what situations are means of restraint authorised?
Were means of restraint used during arrest? If so, was their use
authorised and registered?
For how long are means of restraint imposed?
Is there any evidence that means of restraint are being
disproportionately used in the case of particular groups of
persons?
Under what circumstances are handcuffs used? Is there any
evidence that handcuffs are purposely used in a way to injure
and/or pain detainees?
Were means of restraint removed as soon as the person was
placed in a custodial setting (such as a police station cell)?
Are means of restraint used for punishment?

12

1.5. Arrest12
Relevant standards
“Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be
subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his
liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure
as are established by law.”
ICCPR, Art. 9(1)

“Without prejudice to other international obligations of the State Party
with regard to the deprivation of liberty, each State Party shall, in its
legislation:
(a) Establish the conditions under which orders of deprivation of liberty
may be given;
(b) Indicate those authorities authorized to order the deprivation of
liberty”.
ICPAPED, Art. 17(2)

12	 In this manual, ‘arrest’ refers to the moment when, and process by which, a person is
deprived of liberty, whether on criminal or administrative grounds.

108

Chapter III - International Standards

“Every person shall have the right to personal liberty and to be protected
against any illegal or arbitrary deprivation of liberty”.

1

PBPA, Principle III

Treatment

“(1) Each State shall establish rules under its national law indicating
those officials authorized to order deprivation of liberty, establishing
the conditions under which such orders may be given, and stipulating
penalties for officials who, without legal justification, refuse to provide
information on any detention.
(2) Each State shall likewise ensure strict supervision, including a clear
chain of command, of all law enforcement officials responsible for
apprehensions, arrests, detentions, custody, transfers and imprisonment,
and of other officials authorized by law to use force and firearms.”
UN Declaration on the Protection of all Persons from Enforced
Disappearance, Art. 12

ÖÖSee also
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	

BBP, Principle 2
ECHR, Art. 5
ACHR, Art. 7
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Art. 6
Arab Charter on Human Rights, Art. 14
Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, Art. 20
PBPA, Principles III, IV, IX

Juveniles
“No child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily.
The arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child shall be in conformity
with the law and shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the
shortest appropriate period of time.”
CRC, Art. 37(b)

Comment
All instances of deprivation of liberty must (i) comply with the principle of
legality and (ii) not be arbitrary. The police should only arrest people on
grounds that are specified in national law. Moreover, they should follow all
procedures concerning arrests that are set out in the law. In most systems,
this means the police may only arrest persons after obtaining a warrant,
109

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

Treatment

1

in the moment they are committing a crime, or immediately thereafter. In
addition, persons must not be targeted for arrest, traffic stops or searches
for discriminatory reasons, such racial or ethnic profiling.13
Monitors should review the laws, regulations and procedures concerning
arrests and deprivation of liberty. They should then confirm that these have
been complied with in the case of all persons taken into custody over a
specified period of time; this period of time should be decided by the team
during preparations for the visit.
Although it is unlikely that monitors will be present when persons are being
arrested, they should note that the risk of abuse is especially high at this
moment. In particular, there is a risk that the use of force may be excessive
(see Chapter III, Section 1.3 above) or that means of restraint may be used
in prohibited ways (see Chapter III, Section 1.4 above). The conditions and
modalities of arrests, including the number of police participating in each
operation (e.g. two officers or an entire squad), the equipment used (e.g.
whether light or militaristic), and the timing of arrests (e.g. the middle of the
night or in the afternoon) are useful indicators of both the circumstances of
arrests and the police’s attitudes to them. Monitors should also endeavour
to collect information about the ways in which arrests were conducted
during private interviews.
Tips for monitors
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	

What procedures govern arrests?
Which authorities are authorised to order and/or conduct arrests?
Were the procedures followed with regard to the arrest of
detainees encountered during the visit?
Was there a warrant for the arrest? (NB: This is not always
necessary.)
Were detainees informed about the reasons for their arrest?

13	 Discriminatory ethnic profiling is defined as “treating an individual less favourably than
others who are in a similar situation (in other words ‘discriminating’), for example, by
exercising police powers such as stop and search; where a decision to exercise police
powers is based only or mainly on that person’s race, ethnicity or religion”. Towards
More Effective Policing Understanding and Preventing Discriminatory Ethnic Profiling:
A guide, European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, Publications Office of the
European Union, Luxembourg, 2010, p.15. Available at http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/
attachments/Guide_ethnic_profiling.pdf

110

Chapter III - International Standards

•	
•	
•	
•	

Were detainees informed about their rights at the moment of
the arrest?
Was force used during arrests? If so, was the use of force recorded?
Were measures of restraint used during arrests? If so, have
these been registered?
Was there any suspicion of racial or ethnic profiling in
connection with arrests?

1

14

Treatment

1.6. Searches
Relevant standards
“Whenever bodily searches […] are permitted by law, they shall comply
with criteria of necessity, reasonableness and proportionality.
Bodily searches of persons deprived of liberty and visitors to places
of deprivation of liberty shall be carried out under adequate sanitary
conditions by qualified personnel of the same sex, and shall be compatible
with human dignity and respect for fundamental rights. In line with
the foregoing, Member States shall employ alternative means through
technological equipment and procedures, or other appropriate methods.
Intrusive vaginal or anal searches shall be forbidden by law.
The inspections or searches in units or installations of places of deprivation
of liberty shall be carried out by the competent authorities, in accordance
with a properly established procedure.”
PBPA, Principle XXI

“[P]ersons deprived of their liberty should only be searched by staff of
the same gender and […] any search which requires an inmate to undress
should be conducted out of the sight of custodial staff of the opposite
gender; these principles apply a fortiori in respect of juveniles.”
CPT Standards, p. 85, §2614

Women
“Effective measures shall be taken to ensure that women prisoners’
dignity and respect are protected during personal searches, which shall
only be carried out by women staff who have been properly trained.”
BR, Rule 19
14	 This is echoed with respect to women on p. 91, §23.

111

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

“Alternative screening methods, such as scans, shall be developed to replace
strip searches and invasive body searches, in order to avoid the harmful
psychological and possible physical impact of invasive body searches.”

1

BR, Rule 20

ÖÖSee also

Treatment

•	
•	
•	

ICCPR, Art. 17
Human Rights Committee General Comment N°16 on Art. 17
ICCPR, §3-4, 8
ECPE, §41

Comment
The decision to pursue a body search should always be guided by the
principles of necessity, reasonableness and proportionality. There are risks
of abuse both in terms of ordering unnecessary searches and also in relation
to how searches are conducted. Monitoring teams should ask persons held
in police custody about how and why any searches were conducted.
Staff members in charge of conducting body searches should be trained to
do so. Furthermore, they should follow a strict procedure for all searches.
Detainees should never be asked to undress entirely; strip searches should be
carried out in two steps. First, the police should ask the detainee to remove
all clothes above the waist. Then, once these have all been put them back
on, the police should ask the detainee to remove all clothes below the waist.
Whenever feasible, alternatives to strip searches should be used: the authorities
should be encouraged to consider options such as using X-ray machines.
Monitors should pay particular attention to searches involving groups
who may be discriminated against (e.g. women, juveniles, ethnic or racial
minorities, persons with disabilities, and LGBTI15 persons).
Tips for monitors
•	
•	
•	

Are there procedures that specify how body searches should
be conducted?
Are police staff trained in conducting body searches?
Are strip searches conducted in two steps?

15	 Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender/transsexual and intersex persons.

112

Chapter III - International Standards

•	
•	
•	
•	

Do alternative screening methods exist to replace strip searches?
Are women searched by female staff only?
Are searches conducted out of the sight of custodial staff of
the opposite gender?
Is there any evidence that members of particular groups face
discrimination or abuse relating to body searches?

1

1.7. Interrogations
Treatment

Relevant standards
“Each State Party shall keep under systematic review interrogation
rules, instructions, methods and practices as well as arrangements for
the custody and treatment of persons subjected to any form of arrest,
detention or imprisonment in any territory under its jurisdiction, with a
view to preventing any cases of torture.”

UNCAT, Art. 11

“(1) It shall be prohibited to take undue advantage of the situation of a
detained or imprisoned person for the purpose of compelling him to confess,
to incriminate himself otherwise or to testify against any other person.
(2) No detained person while being interrogated shall be subject to
violence, threats or methods of interrogation which impair his capacity
of decision or his judgment.”

BPP, Principle 21

“(1) The duration of any interrogation of a detained or imprisoned person
and of the intervals between interrogations as well as the identity of the
officials who conducted the interrogations and other persons present
shall be recorded and certified in such form as may be prescribed by law.
(2) A detained or imprisoned person, or his counsel when provided by
law, shall have access to the information described in paragraph 1 of the
present principle.”
BPP, Principle 23

“As new methods of prevention (e.g. videotaping all interrogations […])
are discovered, tested and found effective, article 2 provides authority to
build upon the remaining articles and to expand the scope of measures
required to prevent torture.”
CAT General Comment N°2 on Art. 2 UNCAT, §14
113

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

“Access to a lawyer for persons in police custody should include […] the right
for the person concerned to have the lawyer present during interrogation.”

1

CPT Standards, p.6, §38

States should “Ensure that comprehensive written records of all
interrogations are kept, including the identity of all persons present
during the interrogation and consider the feasibility of the use of video
and/or audio taped recordings of interrogations.”
RIG, Part II, §28

Treatment

“[T]he time and place of all interrogations should be recorded, together
with the names of all those present and this information should also be
available for purposes of judicial or administrative proceedings.”
Human Rights Committee General Comment N°20 on Art. 7 ICCPR, §11

ÖÖSee also
•	 Report of the SRT, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2003/68, §26(g)
•	 ECPE, §50
Comment
Interrogation is, together with arrest, one of the times where detainees
may be at high risk of ill-treatment or abuse. In places where the police’s
criminal investigation capacity is weak, the risk that police officers will
resort to ill-treatment is much higher. Clear procedures on how to conduct
interrogations are an important safeguard.
Due to the risk of abuse, all interrogations should start with the identification
of all persons present. Interrogations should ideally be recorded and
preferably video-recorded (see Chapter III, Section 2.7 below). Written
records of an interrogation should include the identity of all persons
present, the time and place of the interrogation, and the length of both the
interrogation and any breaks. The detainee’s lawyer should be authorised
to attend the interrogation. The practice of blindfolding persons during
interrogation should be expressly prohibited.16
According to the CPT General Recommendations, guidelines on interrogations
should address the following matters: “the informing of the detainee of
16	 CPT Standards, CPT, CoE Doc. CPT/Inf/E (2002) 1, 2002 (revised 2011), p.10, §38. Available
at http://www.cpt.coe.int/En/documents/eng-standards.pdf. See also Report by the SRT,
UN Doc. E/CN.4/2003/68, 17 December 2002, §26(g). Available at http://www.unhchr.ch/
Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/E.CN.4.2003.68.En?Opendocument

114

Chapter III - International Standards

the identity (name and/or number) of those present at the interview; the
permissible length of an interview; rest periods between interviews and
breaks during an interview; places in which interviews may take place;
whether the detainee may be required to stand while being questioned; the
interviewing of persons who are under the influence of drugs, alcohol, etc.”17

1

In addition, police officers should be adequately trained on how to question
witnesses and criminal suspects. In no way should the objective of an
interrogation be to obtain a confession: it should be to obtain reliable information
in order to discover the truth about the matters under investigated.18
Treatment

Although monitors will almost never be present during an interrogation
(see Chapter II, Section 7.2.3), during private interviews they may try to
find out how interrogations are conducted and whether any detainees
have been forced to confess; monitors can collect crucial information after
interrogations have taken place, both in the police station and once detainees
have been released or transferred to detention centres. If appropriate,
monitors can then recommend better supervision of interrogations.
When a person in police custody wishes to make allegations of physical or
mental abuse during an interrogation, monitors should not forget to also
gather ‘neutral’ information on the interrogation that may be of help in
substantiating (or disproving) allegations; for instance, monitors may gather
useful information about the time, length and location of the interrogation,
and the names of those present.
Tips for monitors
•	
•	

•	

•	

Are there any guidelines, rules and/or codes of conduct for police
interrogations?
Is there a register of interrogations? If so, does the register give
the name of the person(s) conducting the interrogation, and the
length of the interrogation and any breaks?
Are all interrogations recorded or video-recorded? If so, what are
the policies with regard to retention and storage of recordings?
Who is in charge of recordings?
Is the police authority in charge of the investigation the same as
the one in charge of custody?

17	 CPT Standards, CPT, p.7, §39.
18	 CPT Standards 2011, p.9, §34.

115

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

•	
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	

1

Treatment

•	

What were the circumstances of the interrogation?
What was the length of the interrogation?
What is the interrogation room like (e.g. is it intimidating or neutral)?
Was the person’s lawyer (if any) present during the interrogation?
Was the person blindfolded or hooded during the interrogation?
Has the person alleged physical violence during the
interrogation?
Has the person suffered, or is the person currently suffering,
psychological violence (such as threats)?

1.8. Transfers
Relevant standards
“(1) When the prisoners are being removed to or from an institution,
they shall be exposed to public view as little as possible, and proper
safeguards shall be adopted to protect them from insult, curiosity and
publicity in any form.
(2) The transport of prisoners in conveyances with inadequate ventilation
or light, or in any way which would subject them to unnecessary physical
hardship, shall be prohibited.
(3) The transport of prisoners shall be carried out at the expense of the
administration and equal conditions shall obtain for all of them.”
SMR, §45

“Surveillance cameras could be installed in various areas (corridors
providing access to cells, route taken by the escort and the deportee to
the vehicle used for transfer”.

CPT Standards, p.82, §44

ÖÖSee also
•	
•	

CPT Standards, p.7, §40 and p.20, §57
Report by the SRT (visit to Pakistan), UN Doc. E/CN.4/1997/7/
Add.2, §106

Comment
Transfers include those from the place of the arrest to the police station, and
from the police station to any other location, including a court or a pre-trial
116

Chapter III - International Standards

detention facility. Monitors should keep in mind that transfers can be made
in special vehicles or police cars.

State authorities should ensure that detainees and their escorts are
supervised throughout transport. They should also ensure that means of
transport are safe and suitable for the purpose of transfers. Procedures
should be put in place to record all transfers in detail.
Monitoring bodies may come across instances in which detainees have been
subjected to repeated transfers, or to transfers to facilities a great distance
from their homes, possibly as a punishment or as a means of exerting
pressure on them to confess or to provide information. These issues should
also be addressed.
Tips for monitors
•	
•	

•	

•	
•	

Are transfer vehicles equipped so that detainees are not
exposed to public view while being transferred?
Are vehicles equipped to minimise injury to detainees in the
event of an accident? Is there a means to release the detainee
quickly from the vehicle in the event of an emergency?
Is there adequate light, heating, ventilation, air conditioning,
and space for the detainee’s person in the vehicle? Does the
equipment work?
In case of long journeys, are comfort breaks planned and
provided?
Does the transfer record reflect the reason for the transfer and
details of the receiving facility?

117

1

Treatment

Although transfers can be easily overlooked during visits by monitoring
bodies, these critical processes should be considered carefully during
interviews in private with detainees. During transfers detainees are in
the hands of the police with no supervision; therefore, the risk of abuse is
particularly high. The number of reports of persons who have suffered illtreatment during transfers indicates the importance of safeguarding these
processes. There are examples of detainees being injured because police
officers purposely drove the transfer vehicle in a very brusque manner or
left it in the sun for hours with the windows closed and detainees inside.
During transfers, the police may also use unlawful means of restraint.

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

•	

1

•	

Treatment

•	
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	

Is the detainee’s medical record attached to the transfer
documents?
Is there a process for informing the detainee and his/her legal
representative in advance of the transfer?
What were the general conditions of transfer?
What was the duration of the transfer?
How was the detainee confined/restrained during the transfer?
Was the detainee comfortable during the transfer?
Did the detainee’s personal items accompany the transfer process?
Was the detainee provided with food and drink during the
transfer? (NB: This will not usually be necessary.)
Were transfer staff physically able to observe the detainee
during transit? Was mutual communication possible?

1.9. Police participation in forced expulsions
Relevant standards
“No Contracting State shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in
any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or
freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality,
membership of a particular social group or political opinion.”
Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, Art. 33

“(1) The authorities of the host state are responsible for the actions of
escorts acting on their instruction, whether these people are state
employees or employed by a private contractor.
(2) Escort staff should be carefully selected and receive adequate training,
including in the proper use of restraint techniques. The escort should be
given adequate information about the returnee to enable the removal
to be conducted safely, and should be able to communicate with the
returnee. Member states are encouraged to ensure that at least one
escort should be of the same sex as that of the returnee.
(3) Contact should be established between the members of the escort
and the returnee before the removal.

118

Chapter III - International Standards

(4) The members of the escort should be identifiable; the wearing of
hoods or masks should be prohibited. Upon request, they should identify
themselves in one way or another to the returnee.”

1

Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe
on Forced Return, Guideline 18

Treatment

“(1) The only forms of restraint which are acceptable are those
constituting responses that are strictly proportionate responses to the
actual or reasonably anticipated resistance of the returnee with a view to
controlling him/her.
(2) Restraint techniques and coercive measures likely to obstruct the
airways partially or wholly, or forcing the returnee into positions where
he/she risks asphyxia, shall not be used.
(3) Members of the escort team should have training which defines the
means of restraint which may be used, and in which circumstances; the
members of the escort should be informed of the risks linked to the use
of each technique, as part of their specialized training. If training is not
offered, as a minimum regulations or guidelines should define the means
of restraint, the circumstances under which they may be used, and the
risks linked to their use.
(4) Medication shall only be administered to persons during their removal
on the basis of a medical decision taken in respect of each particular case.”
Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on Forced
Return, Guideline 19

ÖÖSee also
•	
•	
•	

CAT General Comment 1 on Art. 3 UNCAT in the context of Art. 22
Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of
Europe on Forced Return, Guideline 17
CPT standards, pp.67-68, §32-36

Comment
In some contexts, the police carry out forced expulsions of migrants,
including by deportation flights. Forced expulsions are increasingly common
in industrialised countries. In some countries, NPMs and/or NGOs monitor
the way such expulsions are conducted. The existing standards are mainly
European, from the CPT and the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers;
therefore, they are only binding on the Council of Europe’s Member States.
119

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

Treatment

1

Nevertheless, they can serve as guidance for other regions dealing with the
issue of forced expulsions.
Monitoring teams observing forced expulsions should assess the way forms
of restraint are used in response to resistance on the basis of the principle of
proportionality. The CPT has made clear that “the use of force and/or means
of restraint capable of causing positional asphyxia should be avoided
whenever possible and that any such use in exceptional circumstances must
be the subject of guidelines designed to reduce to a minimum the risks to
the health of the person concerned.”19
At least one escort should be of the same sex as that of the returnee.
Any person to be deported should be given the opportunity to be medically
examined prior to the removal operation. Those who “have been the
subject of an abortive deportation operation [should] undergo a medical
examination as soon as they are returned to detention.”20 As soon as they or
reach their country of destination, persons forcibly expelled should undergo
a medical examination. These measures represent important safeguards for
escort staff against possible unfounded allegations of abuse.
Tips for monitors
•	
•	
•	
•	

•	

Have police staff participating in expulsions been carefully
selected? Have they received adequate training?
Is the use of restraint subject to guidelines designed to reduce
to a minimum the risks of abuse?
Is it possible to remove immediately any means restricting the
freedom of movement of the deportee in case of an emergency?
Do expelled persons undergo a medical examination prior to
departure? In cases where expulsion does not proceed, do they
also undergo a medical examination when they are returned
to detention?
When medication is administered, is a medical doctor in charge
of the decision?

19	 CPT standards, CPT, CoE Doc. CPT/Inf/E (2002) 1, 2002 (revised 2011), p.78, §34. Available
at http://www.cpt.coe.int/En/documents/eng-standards.pdf
20	 Report to the Government of the Netherlands on the visit to the Netherlands carried out
by the CPT from 10 to 21 October 2011, CoE Doc. CPT/Inf (2012) 21, Strasbourg, 9 August
2012, p.63. Available at http://www.cpt.coe.int/documents/nld/2012-21-inf-eng.htm

120

Chapter III - International Standards

•	

•	

What were the modalities of deportation, from the moment
when the person was taken away by the police from the
detention centre to the moment when the person arrived in
the country of destination?
Among the police escorting the expulsed person, was there at
least one staff member of the same sex?

2

2. Fundamental Safeguards

Fundamental Safeguards

2.1. Right to information
Relevant standards
Information on reasons for arrest and charges
“Anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the
reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges
against him.”
ICCPR, Art.9(2)

“[States should]
25. Ensure that all detained persons are informed immediately of the
reasons for their detention.
26. Ensure that all persons arrested are promptly informed of any charges
against them.”
RIG, Part II, §25-26

Information on Rights
“(1) Every prisoner on admission shall be provided with written
information about the regulations governing the treatment of prisoners
of his category, the disciplinary requirements of the institution, the
authorized methods of seeking information and making complaints,
and all such other matters as are necessary to enable him to understand
both his rights and his obligations and to adapt himself to the life of the
institution.
(2) If a prisoner is illiterate, the aforesaid information shall be conveyed
to him orally.”
SMR, §35
121

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

“Any person shall, at the moment of arrest and at the commencement
of detention or imprisonment, or promptly thereafter, be provided by
the authority responsible for his arrest, detention or imprisonment,
respectively, with information on and an explanation of his rights and
how to avail himself of such rights.”
BBP, Principle 13

2
Fundamental Safeguards

“A person who does not adequately understand or speak the language
used by the authorities responsible for his arrest, detention or
imprisonment is entitled to receive promptly in a language which he
understands the information referred to in principle 10, principle 11,
paragraph 2, principle 12, paragraph 1, and principle 13 [i.e. information
about his rights, arrest and detention] and to have the assistance,
free of charge, if necessary, of an interpreter in connection with legal
proceedings subsequent to his arrest.”
BBP, Principle 14

“In order to ensure that [persons taken into police custody are expressly
informed without delay of all their rights] the CPT considers that a
form setting out those rights in a straightforward manner should be
systematically given to persons detained by the police at the very outset
of their custody. Further, the persons concerned should be asked to sign
a statement attesting that they have been informed of their rights.”
CPT Standards, p. 8, §16

ÖÖSee also
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	

122

ICCPR, Art. 14(3)
BBP, Principles 10, 16
Basic principles on the Role of Lawyers, §5
ECHR, Art. 5
ACHR, Art. 7(4)
Arab Charter, Art. 14(3)
PBPPA, Principle V
Report by the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of
Judges and Lawyers, UN Doc. A/HRC/8/a, §27

Chapter III - International Standards

Comment

Persons being brought to a police station will often be confused and scared;
their vulnerability should be taken into consideration by police officials
as regards the way information is conveyed. Detainees should be given
information on their rights in a language they understand.
During interviews, monitors should examine
•	
•	
•	

the extent to which detainees are aware of their rights and
obligations,
the extent to which they have been informed of the reasons for
their arrest, and
the extent to which they have been informed of the charges, if any,
against them.

Monitors should also examine the appropriateness of the methods used to
convey this information. For example, monitors should explore
•	
•	
•	

whether the information was provided in simple, clear language,
whether the language was understood by the detainee, and
the extent to which the detainee understood and had subsequent
access to relevant information.

21	 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, UN Doc.
A/63/271, 12 August 2008, §24-25. Available at http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/SP/
Pages/GA63session.aspx
22	 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, §24-25.

123

2
Fundamental Safeguards

Persons who are deprived of their liberty have the right to receive several
types of information. First, at the time of arrest they have the right to be
informed of the reason for their arrest and of the nature of any charges
against them. Second, they also have the right to receive information on
their rights (e.g. their right to challenge the basis of their detention and
their rights regarding access to a doctor and a lawyer). Third, if there are
no criminal charges at the time of arrest, but charges are made later, then
the detainee has the right to be informed of the charges at that time.21 With
respect to information on the nature of criminal charges (if any) against them,
detainees need to know, at a minimum, “all the details of the charges and of
the case: evidence, time periods and other parties involved. The right to be
informed of the nature and cause of the charges made should be realized in
a detailed, prompt and comprehensible manner.”22 This information should
be provided as soon as charges are filed.

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

Tips for monitors
•	
•	

2

•	

Fundamental Safeguards

•	
•	
•	
•	

•	

•	

•	

•	

124

Are facility-specific regulations available in several languages?
If so, what are the criteria for selecting the languages?
Are posters, booklets and other outreach materials on
detainees’ rights available at the police station?
What information was received by the detainee at the time of
his or her arrest and/or on arrival at the police station?
In what form was this information conveyed?
Was the information given in manner that the detainee found
clear and easy to understand?
Was the information given in a language understood by the
detainee?
Was the detainee informed of the reason for his or her arrest?
If there charges were laid at the time of the arrest, was the
detainee informed of the nature of the charges?
If charges were entered after the detainee’s arrest, when was
he or she informed of the nature of the charges against him
or her?
Does the information on rights provided by the police
make clear the additional rights for juveniles (such as to
have a family member or a trusted adult informed of their
detention immediately and to have them present during any
questioning)?
In the case of foreign nationals, was the information provided
in a language they understand? Were they informed of their
right to communicate with their consular representatives?
Are cases of illiteracy and disability taken into consideration?

Chapter III - International Standards

2.2. Notification of deprivation of liberty to
relatives or a third party
Relevant standards
“An untried prisoner shall be allowed to inform immediately his family of
his detention and shall be given all reasonable facilities for communicating
with his family and friends, and for receiving visits from them, subject
only to restrictions and supervision as are necessary in the interests of the
administration of justice and of the security and good order of the institution.”

2

SMR, §92

Fundamental Safeguards

“(1) Promptly after arrest and after each transfer from one place of detention
or imprisonment to another, a detained or imprisoned person shall be
entitled to notify or to require the competent authority to notify members of
his family or other appropriate persons of his choice of his arrest, detention or
imprisonment or of the transfer and of the place where he is kept in custody.
(2) If a detained or imprisoned person is a foreigner, he shall also be
promptly informed of his right to communicate by appropriate means
with a consular post or the diplomatic mission of the State of which he is
a national or which is otherwise entitled to receive such communication
in accordance with international law or with the representative of the
competent international organization, if he is a refugee or is otherwise
under the protection of an intergovernmental organization.
(3) If a detained or imprisoned person is a juvenile or is incapable of
understanding his entitlement, the competent authority shall on its own
initiative undertake the notification referred to in the present principle.
Special attention shall be given to notifying parents or guardians.
(4) Any notification referred to in the present principle shall be made
or permitted to be made without delay. The competent authority may
however delay a notification for a reasonable period where exceptional
needs of the investigation so require.”
BPP, Principle 16

125

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

“A detained person’s right to have the fact of his/her detention notified
to a third party should in principle be guaranteed from the very outset
of police custody. Of course, the CPT recognises that the exercise of this
right might have to be made subject to certain exceptions, in order to
protect the legitimate interests of the police investigation. However, such
exceptions should be clearly defined and strictly limited in time, and
resort to them should be accompanied by appropriate safeguards (e.g.
any delay in notification of custody to be recorded in writing with the
reasons therefore, and to require the approval of a senior police officer
unconnected with the case or a prosecutor).”

2
Fundamental Safeguards

CPT Standards, p.12, §43

Women
“Prior to or on admission, women with caretaking responsibilities for
children shall be permitted to make arrangements for those children,
including the possibility of a reasonable suspension of detention, taking
into account the best interests of the children.”
BR, Rule 2(2)

ÖÖSee also
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	

SMR, §38, 44(3)
BPP, Principle 19
UN Declaration on the Protection of all Persons from Enforced
Disappearance, Art. 10(2)
CAT General Comment N°2 on Art. 2 UNCAT, §13
PBPA, Principle 5
RIG, Part II, §31

Comment
The right to have a family member or third party notified about the fact
of arrest, detention, and/or transfer, and about the place of detention,
constitutes an essential safeguard against ill-treatment and incommunicado
detention. The notification should be made from the outset of the deprivation
of liberty. The SRT recommends that a relative should be informed of the
arrest and the place of detention within 18 hours, in all circumstances.23
23	 General Recommendations of the SRT, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2003/68, 17 December 2002, §g.
Available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/docs/recommendations.doc

126

Chapter III - International Standards

It is important that police personnel are instructed to inform detainees
of their right to notify a third party. They should also allow detainees to
implement this right. Monitors should check whether these duties are
carried out in practice. However, monitors should note that international
law does not require that a detainee be allowed to speak directly with a
relative (as it may frustrate an on-going investigation): instead, the police
merely have a duty to notify the detainee’s family (or a third party) of the
fact and location of the person’s detention.

Monitors should check that particular attention is paid to minors and
persons with mental disabilities, who may need the competent authority to
notify relatives or a third party on their behalf.
Tips for monitors
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	

•	
•	

2
Fundamental Safeguards

It is important for monitors to check whether foreigners are permitted
to contact a relative or the consular post of the state of which they are a
national.

Are persons held in police custody given the opportunity to
have a relative or other third party informed of their arrest?
Are all detainees systematically informed by the police about
this specific right?
At what moment are detainees given the opportunity to notify
a relative?
Are police personnel properly instructed to inform detainees
about this right?
Are foreign detainees given the opportunity to contact the
diplomatic mission of the country of which they are a national? Is
this right explained to detainees in a language they understand?
If the detainee is a sole carer, what arrangements are in place
for ensuring that dependency obligations are taken care of?
Who is in charge of contacting family members or a third party
in the case of children or persons with intellectual or other
disabilities?

127

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

2.3. Access to a doctor
Relevant standards
“24. A proper medical examination shall be offered to a detained or
imprisoned person as promptly as possible after his admission to the
place of detention or imprisonment, and thereafter medical care and
treatment shall be provided whenever necessary. This care and treatment
shall be provided free of charge.
25. A detained or imprisoned person or his counsel shall, subject only
to reasonable conditions to ensure security and good order in the place
of detention or imprisonment, have the right to request or petition a
judicial or other authority for a second medical examination or opinion.
26. The fact that a detained or imprisoned person underwent a medical
examination, the name of the physician and the results of such an
examination shall be duly recorded. Access to such records shall be
ensured. Modalities therefore shall be in accordance with relevant rules
of domestic law.”

Fundamental Safeguards

2

BPP, Principles 24-25-26

“Persons in police custody should have a formally recognised right
of access to a doctor. In other words, a doctor should always be called
without delay if a person requests a medical examination; police officers
should not seek to filter such requests. Further, the right of access to a
doctor should include the right of a person in custody to be examined,
if the person concerned so wishes, by a doctor of his/her own choice (in
addition to any medical examination carried out by a doctor called by
the police).
All medical examinations of persons in police custody must be conducted
out of the hearing of law enforcement officials and, unless the doctor
concerned requests otherwise in a particular case, out of the sight of
such officials.
It is also important that persons who are released from police custody
without being brought before a judge have the right to directly request a
medical examination/certificate from a recognised forensic doctor.”
CPT Standards, p.11-12, §42

128

Chapter III - International Standards

“It is also important that no barriers should be placed between persons
who allege ill-treatment (who may well have been released without being
brought before a prosecutor or judge) and doctors who can provide
forensic reports recognised by the prosecutorial and judicial authorities.
For example, access to such a doctor should not be made subject to prior
authorisation by an investigating authority.”

2

CPT Standards, p.96, §30

Women

Fundamental Safeguards

“If a woman prisoner requests that she be examined or treated by a
woman physician or nurse, a woman physician or nurse shall be made
available, to the extent possible, except for situations requiring urgent
medical intervention. If a male medical practitioner undertakes the
examination contrary to the wishes of the woman prisoner, a woman
staff member shall be present during the examination.”
BR, Rule 10(2)

“(1) Only medical staff shall be present during medical examinations
unless the doctor is of the view that exceptional circumstances exist or
the doctor requests a member of the prison staff to be present for security
reasons or the woman prisoner specifically requests the presence of a
member of staff as indicated in rule 10, paragraph 2, above.
(2) If it is necessary for non-medical prison staff to be present during medical
examinations, such staff should be women and examinations shall be
carried out in a manner that safeguards privacy, dignity and confidentiality.”
BR, Rule 11

ÖÖSee also
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	

SMR, §10
BR, Rules 6-9
Human Rights Committee General Comment N°20 on Art. 7
ICCPR, §11
CAT General Comment N°2 on Art. 2 UNCAT, §13
Report by the SRT, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2003, §26(g)
RIG, Part II, §31
RPJDL, §49-55
PBPA, Principle IX(3)
129

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

Comment
The right of access to a doctor is not only essential for detainees who need
medical care, but is also a key safeguard against ill-treatment for anyone
held in police custody. It is fundamental that this right be granted from the
start of detention.

Fundamental Safeguards

2

When a person asks for a medical examination, “police officers should not
seek to filter such requests”. The person should be entitled to be examined
by a doctor of his or her own choice, in addition to any examination
conducted by a doctor on duty for the police.24
Medical examinations should always be conducted in accordance with the
principle of medical confidentiality. The SPT recommends that
non-medical persons, other than the patient, should not be
present. In exceptional cases, where a doctor so requests,
special security arrangements may be considered relevant, such
as having a police officer within call. The doctor should note this
assessment in the records, as well as the names of all persons
present. However, police officers should always stay out of
hearing and preferably out of sight of a medical examination.25

The SPT also recommends that
every routine medical examinations [be] carried out using
a standard form that includes (a) a medical history (b) an
account by the person examined of any violence (c) the result
of the thorough physical examination, including a description
of any injuries and (d) where the doctor’s training so allows,
an assessment as to consistency between the three first items.
The medical record should, upon request from the detainee,
be made available to him/her or to his/her lawyer[.]26

Recording injuries suffered by persons detained by the police is an
important safeguard against torture and other ill-treatment. A medical
examination should also be performed when allegations of torture or
other ill-treatment are made, especially when the allegations concern
24	 CPT standards, CPT, CoE Doc. CPT/Inf/E (2002) 1, 2002 (revised 2011), p.11-12, §42. Available
at http://www.cpt.coe.int/En/documents/eng-standards.pdf
25	 Report on the Visit of the SPT to the Maldives, UN Doc. CAT/OP/MDV/1, 26 February 2009,
§111. Available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,CAT,,MDV,4562d8cf2,49eed
8ae2,0.html
26	 Report on the Visit of the SPT to the Maldives, §112.

130

Chapter III - International Standards

psychological ill-treatment, such as the use of solitary confinement, sensory
deprivation, or threats. When detainees are released from police custody
without being brought before a judge, they should be entitled to request
that a medical examination be carried out by a recognised forensic doctor.
Tips for monitors

2

Medical examination
•	

•	
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	

Fundamental Safeguards

•	

What is the system for referring detainees to health facilities in
case of emergency?
Does the custody register record (i) the date and time that the
doctor or nurse was called, and (ii) the date and time of the
eventual examination or of the detainee’s transfer to a local
health facility?
Were women given the option to see a female doctor or nurse?
Are they aware of their right to request a female doctor or nurse?
Has the detainee been examined by a medical person upon
arrival? If so, at what time and for what reason?
Was the detainee offered the opportunity to have an
(additional) examination by a doctor of his/her own choice?
Was the examination done by a nurse/doctor at the police
station or after transfer to a health facility?
How long did the detainee have to wait until the medical
examination took place?
Did the examination take place out of hearing and out of sight
of law enforcement officials?
Was the detainee restrained in any way during the medical
examination?
If needed, was an interpreter made available?

Medical treatment
•	

•	

How are medicines that must be regularly administered to
detainees stored? (e.g. in a locked cupboard, labelled with
the relevant detainee’s name and the timings and amount of
doses?) Who has access to these medicines?
Is there a separate register for the administration of
medications? If not, is a note made on the relevant individual’s
custody file each time medication is dispensed?
131

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

•	

Did the detainee receive medical care? If yes, was it provided
free of charge?

Medical records
•	

2
Fundamental Safeguards

•	
•	

•	
•	

Are detainees’ medical records of held confidentially? Are they
only accessible to doctors and/or nurses?
What medical information do the police have access to?
Is there an official procedure for if a detainee wishes to
complain about ill-treatment? What is the role of healthcare
staff in this procedure?
Is there an incident log in which the police can record any acts
of violence or other occurrences?
In case of allegations of ill-treatment, does anything in the
detainee’s medical records corroborate the allegations?

Healthcare professionals
•	
•	

•	
•	

Are healthcare personnel always available? Is there any
continuity of healthcare staff?
Are the healthcare professionals who attend detainees in police
custody independent of the police? Are healthcare staff under
the responsibility of the Ministry of Health, or under the same
ministry as the police? To whom do healthcare professionals
report directly?
Is there a clinical governance policy for the provision of
healthcare services in police stations?
Do healthcare personnel receive ongoing training?

Specific healthcare issues
•	

•	
•	

132

Is there a procedure to enable detainees with mental illness
to be identified and diverted into appropriate mental health
services?
What safeguards are in place to prevent suicide and other
forms of self-harm?
Is there a procedure for seeking treatment and/or support for
alcohol or other drug misuse or addiction?

Chapter III - International Standards

•	

•	

Do the police seek advice, when appropriate, from healthcare
professionals on any measures that should be taken to improve
conditions for detainees with disabilities?
What is the procedure in case of a medical emergency that
may require a detainee’s urgent transfer to a health clinic or
hospital?

2

2.4. Access to a lawyer
Fundamental Safeguards

Relevant standards
“Any person deprived of liberty shall be authorized to communicate with
and be visited by […] counsel”.
ICPAPED, 17(2d)

“If a detained person does not have a legal counsel of his own choice, he
shall be entitled to have a legal counsel assigned to him by a judicial or
other authority in all cases where the interests of justice so require and
without payment by him if he does not have sufficient means to pay.”
BPP, Principle 17(2)

“(1) A detained or imprisoned person shall be entitled to communicate
and consult with his legal counsel.
(2) A detained or imprisoned person shall be allowed adequate time and
facilities for consultation with his legal counsel.
(3) The right of a detained or imprisoned person to be visited by and
to consult and communicate, without delay or censorship and in full
confidentiality, with his legal counsel may not be suspended or restricted
save in exceptional circumstances, to be specified by law or lawful
regulations, when it is considered indispensable by a judicial or other
authority in order to maintain security and good order. […]
(5) Communications between a detained or imprisoned person and his
legal counsel mentioned in the present principle shall be inadmissible
as evidence against the detained or imprisoned person unless they are
connected with a continuing or contemplated crime.”
BPP, Principle 18

133

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

“For the purposes of his defence, an untried prisoner shall be allowed
to apply for free legal aid where such aid is available, and to receive
visits from his legal adviser with a view to his defence and to prepare
and hand to him confidential instructions. For these purposes, he shall
if he so desires be supplied with writing material. Interviews between
the prisoner and his legal adviser may be within sight but not within the
hearing of a police or institution official.”

2

SMR, §93

Fundamental Safeguards

“All persons deprived of liberty shall have the right to a defence and
to legal counsel, named by themselves, their family, or provided by
the State; they shall have the right to communicate privately with their
counsel, without interference or censorship, without delays or unjustified
time limits, from the time of their capture or arrest and necessarily before
their first declaration before the competent authority.”
PBPA, Principle V

“The right of access to a lawyer should be enjoyed not only by criminal
suspects but also by anyone who is under a legal obligation to attend and stay at - a police establishment, e.g. as a ‘witness’.”
CPT Standards, p.11, §41

ÖÖSee also
•	 CAT General Comment N°2 on Art. 2 UNCAT, §13
•	 Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, §1, 5-8
•	 Human Rights Committee General Comment N°20 on Art.  7
ICCPR, §11
•	 Report by the SRT, UN Doc. A/57/173, §18
•	 Report by the SRT, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2003/68, §26(g)
•	 Report by the SRT, UN Doc. A/56/156, §34
•	 RIG, Part II, §31
•	 CPT Standards, p. 6, §36-38, p. 8, §15

134

Chapter III - International Standards

Comment
Lawyers, by their mere presence in a police station, constitute a safeguard
against ill-treatment, particularly during the critical first hours of detention.
When abuse has occurred, lawyers can advise detainees about complaint
mechanisms and remedies.27

The CPT acknowledges that,
in order to protect the interests of justice, it may exceptionally
be necessary to delay for a certain period a detained person’s
access to a particular lawyer chosen by him. However, this
should not result in the right of access to a lawyer being totally
denied during the period in question. In such cases, access
to another independent lawyer who can be trusted not to
jeopardise the legitimate interests of the police investigation
should be arranged. 31

The right of access to a lawyer should include the presence of the lawyer
during any questioning or interrogation.32 The SPT has stressed that “the
presence of a lawyer during police questioning may not only deter the
police from resorting to ill-treatment or other abuses, but may also work as
a protection for police officers in case they face unfounded allegations of
ill-treatment.”33
27	 CPT standards, CPT, CoE Doc. CPT/Inf/E (2002) 1, 2002 (revised 2011), p.11, §41. Available at
http://www.cpt.coe.int/En/documents/eng-standards.pdf
28	 CPT Standards, p.6, §36.
29	 CPT Standards, p.11, §41.
30	 The Right of Access to Lawyers for Persons Deprived of Their Liberty (Legal Briefing
N°2), APT, Geneva, March 2010, pp.5-7. Available at http://www.apt.ch/index.
php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=283&Itemid=260&lang=en
31	 CPT Standards, p.8, §15.
32	 CPT Standard, p.6, §38; The Right of Access to Lawyers, APT, p.8 (citing sources).
33	 Report on the Visit of the SPT to the Maldives, UN Doc. CAT/OP/MDV/1, 26 February 2009,

135

2
Fundamental Safeguards

The CPT has stated that access to a lawyer is a fundamental safeguard “which
should apply as from the very outset of deprivation of liberty, regardless of
how it may be described under the legal system concerned (apprehension,
arrest, etc.).”28 In addition, this right should be applied to “anyone who is
under a legal obligation to attend – and stay at – a police establishment, e.g.
as a ‘witness’”.29 While some of the standards speak of “prompt access” to a
lawyer, in the APT’s view it is better practice to follow stricter standards and
to provide access from the first moment of detention. 30

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

Persons deprived of their liberty should be systematically informed by the
police of their right to counsel. They should also be provided with “adequate
opportunities, time and facilities” to meet with their counsel. It is crucial that
interviews with legal counsel are held out of hearing, and possibly out of
sight of, law enforcement officials.34

Fundamental Safeguards

2

Finally, if a detainee does not have a legal counsel of his or her own choice,
legal counsel should be appointed. This should be paid for by the state if the
detainee does not have sufficient funds.
If there are not enough lawyers or there is no established legal aid program
in a country, it will prove difficult to fulfil this crucial standard. In such
situations, monitoring bodies may recommend, as proposed by the SPT
in the case of Benin, that the police permit detainees to have a third party
(such as trained NGO personnel or paralegals) present during interrogations
in police custody.35
Tips for monitors
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	

•	

What facilities are provided for meetings with legal counsel?
Do meetings take place in private?
How long are detainees entitled to see their legal counsel for?
Are witnesses who are summoned to the police station entitled
to the same rights regarding access to a lawyer?
Was the detainee informed about his or her right to see a
lawyer? If yes, how long after the arrest took place?
Was a lawyer present during police questioning?
Did the detainee have access to his or her own lawyer? If
not, was legal counsel provided free of charge by the police
authorities?
If access to a lawyer was delayed, what were the grounds for
this? Was the delay (and the grounds for it) registered?

§62. Available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,CAT,,MDV,4562d8cf2,49eed
8ae2,0.html
34	 UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, 27 August to 7 September 1990, Principles 5
and 8. Available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/lawyers.htm
35	 Report on the visit of the SPT to Benin, March 2011, UN Doc. CAT/OP/BEN.1,15 March
2011, §86. Available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cat/opcat/docs/CAT.
OP.BEN.1_en.doc

136

Chapter III - International Standards

3. Legal procedures
3.1. Length of police custody
Relevant standards

Treatment

“Paragraph 3 of article 9 requires that in criminal cases any person arrested
or detained has to be brought ‘promptly’ before a judge or other officer
authorized by law to exercise judicial power. More precise time-limits are
fixed by law in most States parties and, in the view of the Committee,
delays must not exceed a few days.”
HRC General Comment N°8(16) on Art. 9 ICCPR, §2

3

Legal Procedures

“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, in any
case, should not exceed a period of 48 hours. They should accordingly
be transferred to a pre-trial facility under a different authority at once,
after which no further unsupervised contact with the interrogators or
investigators should be permitted.”
Report by the SRT, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2003/68, §26

ÖÖSee also
•	 Report by the SRT, UN Doc. A/HRC/13/39/Add.5, §156
Comment
A person who is arrested or detained in relation to a criminal charge must
be promptly taken in person to a judge or a judicial authority who will take a
decision on release or transfer to a pre-trial detention facility. The right to be
brought before a judge or judicial authority, as well as the general right of
all detainees to challenge the basis of their detention (habeas corpus), help
to prevent persons from being held in police custody for a longer period
than that allowed by domestic law. In some contexts, however, it is quite
common for persons to be detained by the police for a longer period than
that stipulated by law. Most countries’ laws stipulate that the duration of
this period should be between 24 and 72 hours. The SPT has recommended
that “the initial police custody period be of the shortest possible duration”;
afterwards detainees should be held in pre-trial detention facilities. 36
36	 Report on the Visit of the SPT to the Maldives, UN Doc. CAT/OP/MDV/1, 26 February 2009, §78.
Available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,CAT,,MDV,4562d8cf2,49eed8ae2,0.html

137

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

Tips for monitors
•	
•	
•	

Treatment

•	
•	

3

•	

Legal Procedures

•	

What is the maximum length of police custody according to
the law?
What is the average length of detention in the police station/
across a series of police stations?
For how long has the person been detained in the police
station?
Was the time of the arrest properly recorded?
If the detainee is being held on criminal charges, was he or she
brought promptly before a judge or other judicial authority?
If the length of police custody is longer than the period allowed
by law, what are the reasons given?
Was the person provided with an opportunity to challenge
this longer (illegal) period of detention in a habeas corpus
proceeding?

3.2. Access to a judge
Relevant standards
Habeas corpus
“Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be
entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that that court may
decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his
release if the detention is not lawful.”
ICCPR, Art. 9(4)

“Any person deprived of liberty or, in the case of a suspected enforced
disappearance, since the person deprived of liberty is not able to exercise
this right, any persons with a legitimate interest, such as relatives of the
person deprived of liberty, their representatives or their counsel, shall,
in all circumstances, be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in
order that the court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of the
deprivation of liberty and order the person’s release if such deprivation
of liberty is not lawful.”
ICPAPED, Art. 17(2f)

138

Chapter III - International Standards

“(1) A detained person or his counsel shall be entitled at any time to
take proceedings according to domestic law before a judicial or other
authority to challenge the lawfulness of his detention in order to obtain
his release without delay, if it is unlawful.
(2) The proceedings referred to in paragraph 1 of the present principle
shall be simple and expeditious and at no cost for detained persons
without adequate means. The detaining authority shall produce without
unreasonable delay the detained person before the reviewing authority.”
BPP, Principle 32
Treatment

Arrest or detention on criminal charges: right to be brought promptly
before a judge or judicial authority

3

Legal Procedures

“Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought
promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise
judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or
to release. It shall not be the general rule that persons awaiting trial
shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to guarantees
to appear for trial, at any other stage of the judicial proceedings, and,
should occasion arise, for execution of the judgment.”
ICCPR, Art. 9(3)

“A person detained on a criminal charge shall be brought before a
judicial or other authority provided by law promptly after his arrest.
Such authority shall decide without delay upon the lawfulness and
necessity of detention. No person may be kept under detention pending
investigation or trial except upon the written order of such an authority.
A detained person shall, when brought before such an authority, have
the right to make a statement on the treatment received by him while in
custody.”
BPP, Principle 37

139

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

Treatment

“Naturally, the judge must take appropriate steps when there are
indications that ill-treatment by the police may have occurred. In this
regard, whenever criminal suspects brought before a judge at the end of
police custody allege ill-treatment, the judge should record the allegations
in writing, order immediately a forensic medical examination and take the
necessary steps to ensure that the allegations are properly investigated.
Such an approach should be followed whether or not the person
concerned bears visible external injuries. Further, even in the absence of
an express allegation of ill-treatment, the judge should request a forensic
medical examination whenever there are other grounds to believe that a
person brought before him could have been the victim of ill-treatment.”

3

CPT Standards, p.12, §45

ÖÖSee also

Legal Procedures

•	
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	

ICCPR, Art. 9(4)
Human Rights Committee General Comment N°29 on Art. 4
ICCPR, §15-16
HRC Resolution 13/19, UN Doc. A/HRC/RES/13/19, §5
Report by the SRT, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2004/56, §39
Report by the SRT, UN Doc. A/59/324, §22
Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons,
Art. XI(1)
PBPA, Principle V
Joint Study on Global Practices in Relation to Secret Detention
in the Context of Countering Terrorism, UN Doc. A/HRC/13/42,
§292(B)

Comment
While monitors visiting police stations are most likely to encounter
individuals who have been arrested or detained in connection with a
criminal charge, they may also encounter persons who are detained for
other reasons. This section provides information on two distinct, but related
forms of judicial supervision of detention.
Arrest or detention on a criminal charge: right to be brought promptly
before a judge or judicial authority
Every person who is “arrested or detained on a criminal charge” must be
140

Chapter III - International Standards

“brought promptly before a judge or any other officer authorized by law to
exercise judicial power”.37
The meaning of “promptly” has been clarified by courts and treaty bodies to
mean no more than a few days.38 Monitors should consult their local criminal
procedure code as most states have laws setting out how long a person may
be detained before being brought before a judge or judicial authority: this
period may be shorter than that currently allowed under international law.

International human rights law provides that every person who is deprived of
his or her liberty for any reason (e.g. through administrative or immigration
detention) has the right to challenge his or her detention. Every detainee is
entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that
the court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his
detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful. 40

This right is often referred to as the right to habeas corpus.
The detainee should be present at the court for this proceeding.41
37	 ICCPR, Art. 9(3). In States that have adopted the ACHR, this protection applies to all forms
of detention, not just detention related to criminal charges (see Art. 7(5)).
38	 See, for instance, Louise Doswald-Beck, Human Rights in Times of Conflict and Terrorism,
Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2011, p.287.
39	 Report by the SRT, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2004/56, 23 December 2002, §39. Available at http://
www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/0/fbb99d8c59470878c1256e78002ec4de?Ope
nDocument
40	 ICCPR, Art. 9(4). Available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm
41	 Nigel Rodley and Matt Pollard, The Treatment of Prisoners under International Law, Oxford
University Press, Oxford, 2009, p.475.

141

3

Legal Procedures

All types of detention: habeas corpus

Treatment

The requirement to bring individuals arrested on criminal charges in person
before a judge promptly is an important safeguard against torture and illtreatment in police stations. According to the SRT, in addition to ruling on
the lawfulness of the person’s detention, the judicial authority can “monitor
that the detained individual is entitled to all his/her rights, including the
right not to be subjected to torture or other forms of ill-treatment.”39 The
judge or judicial authority should order an investigation and a forensic
medical examination if there is an allegation of torture, or if there is any
reason to believe that torture or other ill-treatment has occurred (even if no
allegations of mistreatment are made).

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

The right to habeas corpus has been determined to be a non-derogable
right and must not be suspended during emergencies such as terrorist
incidents or armed conflicts.42
Tips for monitors
•	

Treatment

•	

•	

3

•	

Legal Procedures

•	
•	
•	

Was the person provided with an opportunity to challenge the
basis for his or her detention?
If detained on a criminal charge, has the detainee been
informed about his or her right to be brought before a judge
or other competent authority?
Has the detainee been brought before a judge in person (e.g.
as opposed to by video conference)? If not, what reasons were
given for not doing so?
If the detainee has been brought before a judge, how many hours
after the person was first taken into custody did this happen?
Was he or she given the opportunity to report any ill-treatment
and/or to lodge a complaint?
Was the detainee given the opportunity to make a statement?
If needed, was an interpreter provided for foreign nationals/
national minorities?

3.3. Release in a verifiable manner
Relevant standards
“Each State Party shall take the necessary measures to ensure that persons
deprived of liberty are released in a manner permitting reliable verification
that they have actually been released. Each State Party shall also take the
necessary measures to assure the physical integrity of such persons and their
ability to exercise fully their rights at the time of release, without prejudice to
any obligations to which such persons may be subject under national law.”
ICPAPED, Art.21

42	 Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency, Inter-American Court of Human Rights,
Advisory Opinion OC-9/87, 6  October 1987. Available at http://www1.umn.edu/
humanrts/iachr/b_11_4i.htm; Nigel Rodley and Matt Pollard, The Treatment of Prisoners
under International Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2009, pp.481-91. In the Arab
Charter on Human Rights (Art. 4(2)), the right to habeas corpus is specifically listed as
a non-derogable right Arab Charter on Human Rights, adopted 15 September 1994
(revised 2004), entered into force 24 January 2008. Available at http://www.unhcr.org/
refworld/docid/3ae6b38540.html

142

Chapter III - International Standards

“All persons deprived of their liberty must be released in a manner
permitting reliable verification that they have actually been released and,
further, have been released in conditions in which their physical integrity
and ability to fully exercise their rights are assured.”
Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances,
Art. 11

Comment

•	
•	

3

Legal Procedures

Tips for monitors
•	

Treatment

It is important that the police have procedures governing the process of
release. In particular, there must be a means to confirm that a person has,
in fact, been released. This is an important protection against enforced
disappearance. In addition, people must be released under conditions that
ensure their physical integrity. For example, people should not be released
late at night in a dangerous area or left alone in a remote area with no means
to get home.

Does the police station maintain records of persons who are
transferred or released?
What procedures are followed when a person is released from
police custody?
Is there a policy for detainees in situations of vulnerability to
ensure that they are released safely?

143

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

4. Procedural safeguards
4.1. Audio-video recording
Relevant standards
“As new methods of prevention (e.g. videotaping all interrogations […])
are discovered, tested and found effective, article 2 provides authority to
build upon the remaining articles and to expand the scope of measures
required to prevent torture.”
CAT General Comment N°2 on Art. 2 UNCAT, §14

“The electronic (i.e. audio and/or video) recording of police interviews
represents an important additional safeguard against the ill-treatment
of detainees. The CPT is pleased to note that the introduction of such
systems is under consideration in an increasing number of countries.
Such a facility can provide a complete and authentic record of the
interview process, thereby greatly facilitating the investigation of any
allegations of ill-treatment. This is in the interest both of persons who
have been ill-treated by the police and of police officers confronted with
unfounded allegations that they have engaged in physical ill-treatment
or psychological pressure. Electronic recording of police interviews also
reduces the opportunity for defendants to later falsely deny that they
have made certain admissions.”

Procedural safeguards

4

CPT Standards, p.9, §36

ÖÖSee also
•	
•	

Report by the SRT, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2003/68, §26(g)
Report by the SRT, UN Doc. A/56/156, §34

Comment
Video recording can be a key safeguard for both detainees and the police,
if there are clear procedures regarding its use. Monitors should be aware of
the fact that there is also a margin for abuse, especially as regards detainees’
privacy and respect for their dignity. Video recording is usually used for two
distinct purposes:
•	
•	
144

for overall monitoring of what takes place within the police
premises, and
for recording police interviews.

Chapter III - International Standards

Monitoring of police premises
As the use of CCTV (closed-circuit television) in places of deprivation of
liberty is relatively recent, existing standards are few in number. However,
the practice of using such recording systems is on the rise. The way they
are used within police stations should be assessed by monitors. In some
countries, police stations may have CCTV surveillance systems installed that
record everything taking place in the reception area, cells, corridors and
other locations.
When dealing with the subject of CCTV, monitors should be conscious
of detainees’ rights to privacy; monitors should establish if areas such as
showers and toilets are covered by cameras. If necessary, they should make
recommendations on these issues. Monitors should also be alert to the fact
that areas not covered by surveillance equipment may present particular
risks.
Monitors should ascertain who is in charge of keeping recordings and
whether there is a register with the dates and times that recordings were
made; this should also include the identities of the persons present. It is also
important to establish the gender of staff able to monitor CCTV in areas
where women are detained.

Procedural safeguards

Recording interviews
If monitors have the legal authority to do so, they may decide to examine
recordings, especially if following up on allegations of ill-treatment. Where
interviews are recorded, the camera(s) should be able to record images of
everyone present in the room, not just the person being interviewed.
Tips for monitors
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	

4

If CCTV is used in the police station, where exactly are cameras
located?
What areas are not covered by the CCTV system?
Who is authorised to view the tapes? What is the policy
regarding gender and privacy? How is it applied in practice?
Are interrogations recorded? If so, do monitors have access to
the recordings?
Who is in charge of the tapes?

145

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

•	

•	

Is there a register with the dates and times recording were
made? Does it also include the identities of the persons in the
recordings?
Does the duration of recordings match the registered times?
Are recordings continuous in real time or are there breaks that
are not accounted for?

4.2. Custody records
Relevant standards
“Each State Party shall assure the compilation and maintenance of one
or more up-to-date official registers and/or records of persons deprived
of liberty, which shall be made promptly available, upon request, to
any judicial or other competent authority or institution authorized for
that purpose by the law of the State Party concerned or any relevant
international legal instrument to which the State concerned is a party.
The information contained therein shall include, as a minimum:
(a) The identity of the person deprived of liberty;
(b) The date, time and place where the person was deprived of liberty
and the identity of the authority that deprived the person of liberty;
(c) The authority that ordered the deprivation of liberty and the
grounds for the deprivation of liberty;
(d) The authority responsible for supervising the deprivation of liberty;
(e) The place of deprivation of liberty, the date and time of admission
to the place of deprivation of liberty and the authority responsible for
the place of deprivation of liberty;
(f) Elements relating to the state of health of the person deprived of
liberty;
(g) In the event of death during the deprivation of liberty, the
circumstances and cause of death and the destination of the remains;
(h) The date and time of release or transfer to another place of detention,
the destination and the authority responsible for the transfer.”

Procedural safeguards

4

ICPAPED, Art. 17(3)

146

Chapter III - International Standards

“(1) There shall be duly recorded:
(a) The reasons for the arrest;
(b) The time of the arrest and the taking of the arrested person to a
place of custody as well as that of his first appearance before a judicial
or other authority;
(c) The identity of the law enforcement officials concerned;
(d) Precise information concerning the place of custody.
(2) Such records shall be communicated to the detained person, or his
counsel, if any, in the form prescribed by law.”
BPP, Principle 12

“The fact that a detained or imprisoned person underwent a medical
examination, the name of the physician and the results of such an
examination shall be duly recorded. Access to such records shall be
ensured. Modalities therefore shall be in accordance with relevant rules
of domestic law.”

4

BPP, Principle 26

ÖÖSee also

•	
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	

SMR, §7
BPP, Principle 23(1)
BR, Rule 3
UN Declaration on the Protection of all Persons from Enforced
Disappearance, Art. 10(2-3)
CAT General Comment N°2 on Art. 2 UNCAT, §13
Human Rights Committee General comment N°20 on Art. 7
ICCPR, §11
HRC Resolution 10/10, A/HRC/RES/10/10, §4
Report by the SRT, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2003/68, §26(g)
Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, UN Doc.
A/HRC/7/4, §84
PPBA, Principle IX (2)
RIG, Part II, §30
CPT Standards, p. 7, §40

Procedural safeguards

•	
•	
•	
•	

147

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

Comment
Monitors should always ask to have access to custody registers as an integral
part of any visit. Examination of the registers, along with private interviews
with detainees and staff, inspection of the premises, and monitor’s own
observations are essential to the triangulation of data that will allow
monitors to develop a full understanding of the police station visited.
Registers of particular interest to visiting teams will include those on
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	

Procedural safeguards

4

the use of force and firearms,
disciplinary measures,
incidents,
interrogations, and
the movements of persons in and out of the police station.

It is important that visiting mechanisms become familiar with registers and
their official names. They should also be capable of identifying if documents
have been inadequately completed.
When no registers are available, or when existing ones are badly kept,
monitoring bodies should usually make suggestions and recommendations
to the authorities on (i) the importance of keeping rigorous custody registers
and (ii) the police’s national and international obligations with regard
to registers. Ideally, each national police service/force should develop a
standardised and unified record for comprehensively registering all key
information about an individual’s deprivation of liberty. Police staff should
be trained to use this appropriately and consistently. The unified record
should include at least the information listed above.43
In some contexts, one of the explicit objectives of a programme of visits
might be to protect persons from enforced disappearance. In such cases,
following up on the information in registers is crucial. Follow up visits should
verify information on releases and/or transfers to other places of detention.
This verification might take place during a visit to other places of detention
or through contact with the families of detainees or with detainees who
have already been released.

43	 CPT standards, CPT, CoE Doc. CPT/Inf/E (2002) 1, 2002 (revised 2011), p.7, §40. Available at
http://www.cpt.coe.int/En/documents/eng-standards.pdf

148

Chapter III - International Standards

Tips for monitors
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	

What registers are maintained at the police station?
Are there registers on the use of force and firearms? Are there
registers on disciplinary measures?
Are there registers on the occurrence of any incidents? Are all
important incidents recorded?
Are there registers on the movements of persons in and out of
the police station? Are entry and exit registers rigorously kept?
Who is in charge of the registers? Who has access to them?
How is the information in registers used?
If requested, are records communicated to the detainee or his
or her counsel?

4.3. Complaints

4

Relevant standards

Procedural safeguards

“Each State Party shall ensure that any individual who alleges he has been
subjected to torture in any territory under its jurisdiction has the right
to complain to, and to have his case promptly and impartially examined
by, its competent authorities. Steps shall be taken to ensure that the
complainant and witnesses are protected against all ill-treatment or
intimidation as a consequence of his complaint or any evidence given.”
UNCAT, Art. 13

“(1) A detained or imprisoned person or his counsel shall have the right
to make a request or complaint regarding his treatment, in particular in
case of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, to the
authorities responsible for the administration of the place of detention
and to higher authorities and, when necessary, to appropriate authorities
vested with reviewing or remedial powers. […]
(3) Confidentiality concerning the request or complaint shall be
maintained if so requested by the complainant.

149

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

(4) Every request or complaint shall be promptly dealt with and replied
to without undue delay. If the request or complaint is rejected or, in case
of inordinate delay, the complainant shall be entitled to bring it before
a judicial or other authority. Neither the detained or imprisoned person
nor any complainant under paragraph 1 of the present principle shall
suffer prejudice for making a request or complaint.”
BPP, Principle 33

“Law enforcement officials who have reasons to believe that a violation of
the present Code has occurred or is about to occur shall report the matter
to their superior authorities and, where necessary, to other appropriate
authorities or organs vested with reviewing or remedial power.”
CCLEO, Art. 8

ÖÖSee also
•	 BR, Rule 25(1)
•	 Report by the SRT, UN Doc. A/HRC/13/39/Add.5, §110-112
•	 Opinion of the Commissioner for Human Rights Concerning
Independent and Effective Determination of Complaints against
the Police, CoE Doc. CommDH(2009)4
•	 ‘Combating impunity’ in CoE Doc. CPT/Inf (2004)28, §25-42

Procedural safeguards

4

Comment
Complaints mechanisms are key components of any professional and
accountable police institution; therefore, their existence and effectiveness
should be examined by monitors. Complaints can cover a wide variety of
issues relating to police conduct, ranging from allegations of human rights
violations to inadequate work performance.
There are different levels of mechanisms. The first generally comprises an
internal complaints mechanism through which complaints addressed to the
head of the police station/department are investigated internally by a police
unit. However, the work of this mechanism may have shortcomings because
of the lack of independence and the strong ‘esprit de corps’ within the police.
Filing an official criminal complaint is another possibility; however, the
operational investigation of the complaint might be carried out by the
police. It is important that a special unit within the police exists to investigate
complaints. Ideally, there should be a totally independent police complaints
body.
150

Chapter III - International Standards

Complaints systems should be visible and accessible: information about
complaints mechanisms should be available and displayed in police
premises. Filing a complaint should be made possible not only in person
but also by telephone and/or written correspondence.
In addition, cases of deaths and serious injuries in police custody could be
referred systematically and automatically to appropriate mechanisms for
immediate investigation.
Whatever the system in place, investigations of complaints against the
police should meet the following criteria:44
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	

Monitors should also identify whether the fact of lodging a complaint has
resulted in any form of sanctions.
At the end of the investigation – whether criminal or disciplinary – the
complainant should be informed in writing of the resolution of the
complaint. The opportunity to appeal should be made available.
Tips for monitors
•	
•	

•	
•	

By what avenues can persons deprived of their liberty make
complaints?
Are complaints procedures accessible to detainees (including
those who are foreign nationals or illiterate or who have
intellectual, psychosocial or sensory disabilities)?
Is confidentiality respected?
Is the procedure transparent?

44	 These criteria were developed primarily by the European Court of Human Rights, the CPT
and the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights.

151

4
Procedural safeguards

Independence: There should be no institutional or hierarchical
relations between the mechanisms and the police that they supervise.
Thoroughness: The mechanisms should be able to look at all facts
and take all steps to secure evidence.
Promptness: Investigations should be conducted in a prompt and
expeditious way.
Public scrutiny: Procedures and decision-making processes should
be open and transparent.
Victim involvement: The complainant(s) should be involved in the
process.

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

•	
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	

•	
•	
•	

4

•	

Procedural safeguards

•	

Is the procedure transparent?
Is the system flexible enough to meet the needs of detainees?
Is it possible for an outsider to complain on behalf of a detainee?
Do complainants receive a timely response that addresses the
substance of the complaint?
Are statistics on responses to complaints kept, analysed and
acted on?
How many complaints have been lodged over the last three/
six/twelve months? How does this number compare with the
average number of persons held in the police station?
What is the nature of the current pattern of complaints?
What is the most common outcome? What is the most common
result of appeals?
What percentage of complaints have been decided in favour
of the complainant?
Do rules for police officers regarding the handling of complaints
exist?
Have there been any allegations of retaliation or sanctions for
pursuing a complaint?

4.4. Inspection and monitoring
Relevant standards
“(1) Each State Party shall allow visits, in accordance with the present
Protocol, by the mechanisms referred to in articles 2 and 3 to any place
under its jurisdiction and control where persons are or may be deprived
of their liberty, either by virtue of an order given by a public authority or
at its instigation or with its consent or acquiescence (hereinafter referred
to as places of detention). These visits shall be undertaken with a view
to strengthening, if necessary, the protection of these persons against
torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
OPCAT, Art. 4

152

Chapter III - International Standards

“(2) Without prejudice to other international obligations of the State
Party with regard to the deprivation of liberty, each State Party shall, in
its legislation […]:
(e) Guarantee access by the competent and legally authorized authorities
and institutions to the places where persons are deprived of liberty, if
necessary with prior authorization from a judicial authority.”
ICPAPED, Art.17(2e)

“(1) In order to supervise the strict observance of relevant laws and
regulations, places of detention shall be visited regularly by qualified
and experienced persons appointed by, and responsible to, a
competent authority distinct from the authority directly in charge of the
administration of the place of detention or imprisonment.
(2) A detained or imprisoned person shall have the right to communicate
freely and in full confidentiality with the persons who visit the places
of detention or imprisonment in accordance with paragraph  1 of the
present principle, subject to reasonable conditions to ensure security
and good order in such places.”

4

BPP, Principle 29

Women
Procedural safeguards

“In order to monitor the conditions of detention and treatment of women
prisoners, inspectorates, visiting or supervisory bodies shall include
women members”.
BR, Rule 25(3)

Disabled persons
“Civil society, in particular persons with disabilities and their representative
organizations, shall be involved and participate fully in the monitoring
process.”

CRPD, Art. 33(3)

ÖÖSee also
•	 SMR, §55
•	 CRPD, Art. 16(3)
•	 CAT General Comment N°2 on Art. 2 UNCAT, §13
•	 Report by the SRT, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2003/68, §26(f)
•	 Joint Study on Global Practices in Relation to Secret Detention in
the Context of Countering Terrorism, UN Doc. A/HRC/13/42, §292(a)
•	 CPT Standards, p.14, §50
153

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

Comment
A variety of complementary internal and external inspection systems
is necessary to safeguard the rights of persons deprived of their liberty.
Detainees should be given the opportunity to communicate freely and
confidentially with inspection mechanisms. Monitors, as members of a
visiting mechanism, constitute one of these systems; their inspections
are among the most effective ways to prevent torture. To be as effective
as possible, visits by monitors should be both regular and unannounced.
Furthermore, visiting bodies should be empowered to interview detained
persons in private.45
Visiting mechanisms should strive to recruit monitors with profiles as diverse
as possible, considering the importance of both gender balance and diverse
professional expertise and experience.
Mechanisms should monitor the extent to which places of detention react
to their observations and recommendations.
Tips for monitors
•	
•	

5

•	
Material conditions

•	
•	
•	
•	

Are there any internal inspection mechanisms? (NB: In some
jurisdictions there may be only one such body or none at all.)
What is the mandate and composition (e.g. as regards gender
balance and the professional background of members) of the
mechanism(s)?
How frequently do inspections take place? Are they
unannounced?
Are detainees granted confidential access to the mechanism(s)?
Can the mechanism(s) receive and examine complaints?
Who has access to the reports of the inspection mechanism(s)?
Are the reports made public?
What were the results of the inspections made to date?

45	 CPT standards, CPT, CoE Doc. CPT/Inf/E (2002) 1, 2002 (revised 2011), p.14, §50. Available
at http://www.cpt.coe.int/En/documents/eng-standards.pdf

154

Chapter III - International Standards

5. Material conditions
Relevant standards
“84. (1) Persons arrested or imprisoned by reason of a criminal charge
against them, who are detained either in police custody or in prison
custody (jail) but have not yet been tried and sentenced, will be referred
to as “untried prisoners” hereinafter in these rules. […]
86. Untried prisoners shall sleep singly in separate rooms, with the
reservation of different local custom in respect of the climate. […]
90. An untried prisoner shall be allowed to procure at his own expense or
at the expense of a third party such books, newspapers, writing materials
and other means of occupation as are compatible with the interests
of the administration of justice and the security and good order of the
institution.”
SMR, §84(1), 86, 90

“The police shall provide for the safety, health, hygiene and appropriate
nourishment of persons in the course of their custody. Police cells shall
be of a reasonable size, have adequate lighting and ventilation and be
equipped with suitable means of rest”.
ECPE, §56

5
Material conditions

“All police cells should be clean and of a reasonable size for the number
of persons they are used to accommodate, and have adequate lighting
(i.e. sufficient to read by, sleeping periods excluded); preferably cells
should enjoy natural light. Further, cells should be equipped with a
means of rest (e.g. a fixed chair or bench), and persons obliged to stay
overnight in custody should be provided with a clean mattress and clean
blankets. Persons in police custody should have access to a proper toilet
facility under decent conditions, and be offered adequate means to
wash themselves. They should have ready access to drinking water and
be given food at appropriate times, including at least one full meal (i.e.
something more substantial than a sandwich) every day. Persons held in
police custody for 24 hours or more should, as far as possible, be offered
outdoor exercise every day.”
CPT 12th General Report, §47

155

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

Women
“The accommodation of women prisoners shall have facilities and
materials required to meet women’s specific hygiene needs, including
sanitary towels provided free of charge and a regular supply of water to
be made available for the personal care of children and women”.
BR, Rule 5

“Women and girls deprived of their liberty shall regularly be provided
with those articles that are indispensable to the specific sanitary needs
of their sex.”
PBPA, Principle XI

ÖÖSee also
•	
•	
•	
•	

SMR, §4, 9-14, 20
CRPD, Article 9
PBPA, Principles XI, XII,XVII
CPT 2nd General Report, §42-43

Comment

Material conditions

5

Detention in police custody is supposed to be of short duration; therefore,
material conditions are expected to be more basic than in prisons. However,
police cells should have natural light and ventilation, and a temperature
appropriate to the climate and season. If a person has to spend a night in
the cell, it must be equipped with a mattress and blankets. Toilets should be
clean and hygienic, and access to toilets should not involve delay. Detainees
should have access to drinking water and be provided with food of adequate
nutritious value.
The smaller the cell, the less time a detainee should spend there. The
following criterion (seen as a desirable level rather than a minimum standard)
is used by the CPT when assessing individual police cells for stays in excess
of a few hours: cells should be in the order of 7 square metres, with 2 metres
or more between walls, and 2.5 metres between the floor and ceiling.46
Monitors should be aware that police stations are sometimes used for much
longer periods than that those deemed acceptable by law, police facilities
46	2nd General Report on the CPT’s activities covering the period 1 January to 31 December
1991, CPT, CoE Doc. CPT/Inf (92) 3, 13 April 1992. Available at http://www.cpt.coe.int/En/
annual/rep-02.htm

156

Chapter III - International Standards

being, in most cases, inadequate for long- or mid-term detention. On
such occasions, material conditions should be equivalent to the expected
minimum standards guaranteed in longer-term pre-trial detention.
States Parties to the CRPD have a duty, under Article 9, to work towards
ensuring the accessibility of public places to disabled persons. Monitors
should therefore check whether reasonable accommodations are provided
for persons with disabilities; for instance, monitors should check whether
any of the accommodation and toilet facilities would be accessible to
wheelchair users.
Tips for monitors
Cells
•	

•	
•	
•	

•	

6
Police personnel

•	

What is the size of the cells? What is their official capacity?
How many people were in each cell at the time of the visit?
Do registers or other records show significant variations in this
regard? If so, what was the maximum number of persons held
in each cell over a given period?
What happens if there are more people in custody than there
is authorised space for?
Is the temperature in cells adequate for the season and climate?
Is there heating/ventilation? Does it work?
Do cells have access to natural light and ventilation? Do any
electric lights work? If so, are they bright enough to read by?
Do detainees have the ability to switch off or dim artificial
lights (if any)? Alternatively, can they ask for this to be done so
that they can sleep during the night? If so, what is the process
for this and how efficient is it?
Are there beds, mattresses, blankets and pillows? Are they
clean? What arrangements are there for cleaning them and the
cell?
Is there a bell or buzzer in each cell that can be used to
summon assistance from the guard in the event of (i) a need to
use the toilet (if the cell does not have one), (ii) illness, or (iii) an
emergency? Does it work?

157

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

Food and water
•	

•	
•	
•	

With what frequency is food provided? What type of food is
provided at each stage of detention (e.g. are detainees provided
with hot meals at least once per day)? Are special dietary
requirements (vegetarian, religious, medical) catered for?
Who pays for detainees’ food? Do the police rely on detainees’
families to provide and/or pay for food?
Has the person been given any food? Has he or she received a
hot meal?
Does the person have direct access to drinking water?

6

Exercise
•	 Is there an exercise yard? Is it of sufficient size for the purpose
and number of detainees using it at any one time?
•	 What is detainees’ entitlement to exercise? Do detainees
exercise alone or with others? For how long are detainees
allowed to exercise each day?

Police personnel

Shower and toilet facilities
•	 What are the conditions for access to toilets?
•	 Are toilets functioning and hygienic? If a bucket system is used,
are these emptied regularly?
•	 What are the conditions for access to a shower? Are showers
functioning and hygienic?
•	 Is the privacy of detainees respected?
•	 Are detainees supplied with toiletries (including towels and
toilet paper) or do they have to provide/pay for their own?

Groups in situations of vulnerability
•	 Are women and juveniles kept in separate cells from adult
males?
•	 Is there any special provision for women and other groups in
situations of vulnerability?
•	 Are women offered hygiene packs?
•	 Is attention given to the risks that LGBTI detainees may face
when accommodated with other detainees?

158

Chapter III - International Standards

•	

•	
Other
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	

•	

Are detainees assessed on admission to determine whether
they pose a risk to other detainees? When necessary, are
separate accommodations made to ensure safety?
Have reasonable adjustments been made to accommodate the
needs of persons with disabilities?
Are detainees provided with reading materials?
Are there reasonable provisions for religious observances?
Can custody cells be evacuated safely in an emergency?
If detainees are allowed to write letters, are they supplied with
writing materials?
If it is necessary to take clothing from detainees for the
purposes of forensic investigation, are they provided with
replacement clothing?
Are detainees allowed a change of clothing?

6. Police personnel
6.1. Code of conduct
Relevant standards
“(2) Public officials shall ensure that they perform their duties and
functions efficiently, effectively and with integrity, in accordance with
laws or administrative policies. They shall at all times seek to ensure that
public resources for which they are responsible are administered in the
most effective and efficient manner.
(3) Public officials shall be attentive, fair and impartial in the performance
of their functions and, in particular, in their relations with the public. They
shall at no time afford any undue preferential treatment to any group or
individual or improperly discriminate against any group or individual, or
otherwise abuse the power and authority vested in them.”

6
Police personnel

(UN) International Code of Conduct for Public Officials, Principle I(2-3)

159

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

“8. The public demands that the integrity of police officials be above
reproach. Police officials shall, therefore, behave in a trustworthy manner
and avoid any conduct that might compromise integrity and thus
undercut the public confidence in a police force/service. […]
10. Police officials shall at all times fulfill the duties imposed upon them
by law, in a manner consistent with the high degree of responsibility and
integrity required by their profession. […]
11. Police officials shall ensure that they treat all persons in a courteous
manner and that their conduct is exemplary and consistent with the
demands of the profession and the public they serve.”
SARPCCO Code of Conduct for Police Officials, Art. 8, 10, 11

“16. Police personnel, at all levels, shall be personally responsible
and accountable for their own actions or omissions or for orders to
subordinates.
17. The police organisation shall provide for a clear chain of command
within the police. It should always be possible to determine which
superior is ultimately responsible for the acts or omissions of police
personnel.
18. The police shall be organised in a way that promotes good police/
public relations and, where appropriate, effective co-operation with
other agencies, local communities, non-governmental organisations and
other representatives of the public, including ethnic minority groups. […]
20. The police organisation shall contain efficient measures to ensure
the integrity and proper performance of police staff, in particular, to
guarantee respect for individuals’ fundamental rights and freedoms as
enshrined, notably in the European Convention on Human Rights.”

Police personnel

6

ECPE, 16-18, 20

ÖÖSee also
•	 UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, UN Doc. A/
RES/34/169, Art.1
•	 ECPE, §1, 12
Comment
Ethical standards are the cornerstone of good governance. A national code
of conduct or code of ethics helps to inform and guide the conduct of police
officers. It also ensures that they share a common ethical basis for their
160

Chapter III - International Standards

work. Codes of ethics provide a framework that encourages professional
behaviour in all police tasks. They also encourage a sense of individual
responsibility on the part of each and every person working for the police.
This can be reinforced by an official declaration, made by every new officer
upon his or her appointment (e.g. a police oath).
Both UN and regional codes of conduct provide a solid framework for all
states willing to put in place a national code of police ethics and/or conduct.
Codes of conduct may operate in parallel with national police laws or
independently.
Monitoring bodies, regardless of the existence of a national code of ethics,
will need to pay particular attention to the behaviour of staff: the way they
perform their tasks is central to the general climate of police stations. The
behaviour of the staff with regard to detainees will very much depend
on the formal and informal instructions they receive. Staff members are
influenced by the approach and behaviour of their own hierarchy, by
statements made by politicians and the media, and by the general public’s
attitude towards detainees. The existence of a code of conduct can serve as
useful guidance for police staff, especially if they believe that their hierarchy
does not act in compliance with human rights standards. The way national
codes of conduct are drafted (e.g. whether they are respectful towards
human dignity or militaristic) can also serve as useful indicators regarding
the institutional culture of the police.
Tips for monitors
•	

•	

•	
•	

6
Police personnel

•	

Is there a national code of conduct and/or ethics for the police?
If so, are police staff aware of its existence? Do they use it as
guidance?
What is the content of the code? What language(s) is it in? How
does this relate to the main language(s) spoken by the police
in the country?
If there is no such national code, are police staff aware of the
existence of UN and regional codes of conduct?
How is the chain of command organised within the police
force/service?
How is police performance measured against the code of
conduct?

161

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

6.2. Recruitment
Relevant standards
“Governments and law enforcement agencies shall ensure that all law
enforcement officials are selected by proper screening procedures, have
appropriate moral, psychological and physical qualities for the effective
exercise of their functions”.
BPUFF, §18

“22. Police personnel, at any level of entry, shall be recruited on the
basis of their personal qualifications and experience, which shall be
appropriate for the objectives of the police.
23. Police personnel shall be able to demonstrate sound judgment,
an open attitude, maturity, fairness, communication skills and, where
appropriate, leadership and management skills. Moreover, they shall
possess a good understanding of social, cultural and community issues.
24. Persons who have been convicted for serious crimes shall be
disqualified from police work.
25. Recruitment procedures shall be based on objective and nondiscriminatory grounds, following the necessary screening of candidates.
In addition, the policy shall aim at recruiting men and women from
various sections of society, including ethnic minority groups, with the
overall objective of making police personnel reflect the society they
serve.”
ECPE, §22-25

Police personnel

6

Comment
Recruitment procedures represent a pivotal component of any police
institution. It may be very instructive for monitors to look at recruitment
procedures, as they will probably reflect the police’s internal organisational
values. For instance, if a recruitment campaign conveys an image of the police
where the use of force is highlighted, this may suggest that the institution
sees itself as a force rather than as a service. Criteria for recruitment, such as
minimal educational requirements, gender, age, height, and so forth may
also reveal useful information about the institutional culture of the police.
The composition of the police, including the presence of minorities within
the police, should ideally be representative of the overall population.
162

Chapter III - International Standards

Some monitoring bodies, such as the NPMs, are entitled to make comments
and recommendations on the recruitment process, existing recruitment
procedures and possible discrimination in the hiring of new staff.
Tips for monitors
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	

What are the procedures for recruitment and selection of
police staff?
What are the main criteria for recruitment? What are the
grounds for disqualifying possible candidates?
What is the ratio of men to women within the police?
If relevant, what is the ratio of minority groups within the police?
Does the police service/force as a whole reflect the country’s
demographic profile?
What explicit and implicit messages are conveyed in police
recruitment campaigns?

6.3. Training
Relevant standards
“(1) Each State Party shall ensure that education and information
regarding the prohibition against torture are fully included in the training
of law enforcement personnel, civil or military, medical personnel,
public officials and other persons who may be involved in the custody,
interrogation or treatment of any individual subjected to any form of
arrest, detention or imprisonment.
(2) Each State Party shall include this prohibition in the rules or instructions
issued in regard to the duties and functions of any such person.”

6

UNCAT, Art. 10
Police personnel

“The States Parties shall take measures so that, in the training of police officers
and other public officials responsible for the custody of persons temporarily
or definitively deprived of their freedom, special emphasis shall be put on
the prohibition of the use of torture in interrogation, detention, or arrest.”
IACPPT, Art. 7(1)

163

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

“The personnel of places of deprivation of liberty shall receive initial
instruction and periodic specialized training, with an emphasis on the
social nature of their work. Such instruction and training shall include, at
least, education on human rights; on the rights, duties, and prohibitions
in the exercise of their functions; and on national and international
principles and rules regarding the use of force, firearms, and physical
restraint. For these purposes, the Member States of the Organization of
American States shall promote the creation and operation of specialized
education and training programs with the participation and cooperation
of social institutions and private enterprises.”
PBPA, Principle 20(7)

“28. General initial training should preferably be followed by in-service
training at regular intervals, and specialist, management and leadership
training, when it is required. […]
30. Police training shall take full account of the need to challenge and
combat racism and xenophobia.”
ECPE, §28, 30

Juveniles
“The personnel should receive such training as will enable them to
carry out their responsibilities effectively, in particular training in child
psychology, child welfare and international standards and norms of
human rights and the rights of the child, including the present Rules.”
RPJDL, §85

ÖÖSee also

Police personnel

6

•	
•	
•	
•	

BPUFF, §18
RIG, Part II, §46
ECPE, §26, 27, 29
CPT 2nd General Report, CoE Doc. CPT/Inf (92) 3, §60-61

Comment
Qualified and well-trained police staff are the basis of a well-functioning
police system; visiting mechanisms should seek information on the training
provided and its suitability. Properly training for police officers represents
a good guarantee against ill-treatment. A well-designed curriculum for
police training should focus on ethical values and respect for human rights
164

Chapter III - International Standards

throughout. This is especially important in operational training courses on
•	
•	
•	

how to conduct interrogations,
the use of means of restraint, and
technical skills (e.g. the use of force and firearms).

The curriculum should also include training on
•	
•	
•	
•	

interpersonal communication,
the prevention of disorder,
non-violent conflict management, and
stress management.

These skills may allow police officers to defuse situations that might
otherwise turn violent.
Opportunities for continued training should be provided, without any
discrimination, for all staff, regardless of their sex, age and rank. Participation
in continued training and/or professional development may lead to
promotion. If this is not the case, monitors should consider enquiring about
the promotion system and whether it is based on length of service, ‘results’
or other criteria.
In addition to on-going training opportunities, police staff should have
access to psychological support and debriefing, especially after violent
incidents.
Tips for monitors
•	
•	

•	
•	

6
Police personnel

•	

What types of basic training do new recruits receive? How long
does training last? What subject areas does it cover?
What opportunities are there for on-going training? Are they
taken up? Who has access to them (i.e. are there any restrictions
by rank, gender, or minority ethnic background)?
Do police staff receive specific training on how to deal with
groups in situations of vulnerability, such as juveniles or
mentally disabled persons?
Does training integrate a gendered approach to policing?
Does training cover complaints, inspection and monitoring
(including external monitoring by visiting mechanisms)?

165

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

6.4. Uniform and identification
Relevant standards
“14. The police and its personnel in uniform shall normally be easily
recognisable. […]
45. Police personnel shall during intervention normally be in a position to
give evidence of their police status and professional identity.”
ECPE, §14, 45

“The CPT wishes to make clear that it has strong misgivings regarding the
practice observed in many countries of law enforcement officials or prison
officers wearing masks or balaclavas when performing arrests, carrying
out interrogations, or dealing with prison disturbances; this will clearly
hamper the identification of potential suspects if and when allegations
of ill-treatment arise. This practice should be strictly controlled and only
used in exceptional cases which are duly justified; it will rarely, if ever, be
justified in a prison context.”
CPT 14th General Report, §34

Comment
Considering the considerable powers, and particularly the coercive powers,
held by the police, it is important that police officers are easy to identify
through their uniforms. To promote individual accountability towards the
public, some police services/forces have introduced the practice displaying
ID numbers on the chest.

Police personnel

6

In some cases, police may be in plain clothes; however, they should be
in a position to show their police status through a badge or other official
identification document. From a preventive perspective, monitors may wish
to check the regulations and the practice regarding the use of plain clothes
and the possible ways of identifying individual police officers.
The police should not hide their faces with masks when acting in an official
capacity. There is a risk that ill-treatment will be inflicted with complete
impunity if victims and other witnesses are not in a position to identify
those potentially responsible for violations. The practice of wearing
balaclavas should be strictly controlled, as recommended by the CPT (see
the standards quoted above).

166

Chapter III - International Standards

Tips for monitors
•	
•	
•	

•	
•	

What is the image conveyed through the uniforms used by the
police?
If asked, were police officers able to give evidence of their
police status?
Is there any regulation on masks or balaclavas that clearly
describes the exceptional circumstances when their use is
authorised?
Are detainees able to identify those who carried out their
arrest and interrogation?
Were police personnel wearing balaclavas or any other piece
of clothing that hid the face while engaged in arresting the
detainee? Did they do so during any interrogation(s)?

6
Police personnel
167

Notes

Notes

Monitoring Police Custody
“The police have specific powers, such as the lawful use of
force, and the detainee is completely in the hands of the law
enforcement agents. This imbalance of power creates a situation
of risk, where abuse and torture might take place”.
Foreword by Prof. Juan Méndez
UN Special Rapporteur on Torture
Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
most frequently occur in the early stages of the deprivation of liberty
– when a person is arrested, detained and interrogated by the police.
To prevent abuse, States increasingly allow for regular, unannounced
visits to police stations by independent monitors. This manual is a
response to a growing demand for practical guidance on methodology
and follow-up of such visits. Several well-known experts in the field of
policing and torture prevention contributed to this publication, making
it an indispensable tool for any organisation or individual carrying out
monitoring visits to police stations.

ISBN 978-2-940337-51-4

30.- CHF 25.- €

APT · P.O. Box 137 · 1211-Geneva 19 · Switzerland · www.apt.ch

Monitoring Police Custody - A practical guide

A practical guide

EN

∙

Monitoring Police
Custody
A practical guide