A/HRC/45/CRP.9 professional ethics”, free from any pressure, restrictions or undue interference. 71 The same standards are reflected in Ukrainian legislation.72 59. In the majority of conflict-related criminal cases monitored by OHCHR, defendants were represented by state-appointed lawyers from the free legal aid system. Individual cases documented by OHCHR throughout the reporting period illustrated a worrying continuous pattern of frequent violations of one or more of the above elements of the right to legal counsel. 60. OHCHR observed that immediate access to a lawyer was not always granted to individuals detained on conflict-related charges. In 45 monitored cases, law enforcement officials failed to immediately inform the free legal aid centres of the arrests made. As a result, the authorities interrogated detainees without a lawyer present, contrary to the law. This made it easier to exert pressure on detainees and obtain confessions or desired information.73 61. OHCHR also observed that some free legal aid lawyers violated their professional and legal obligations by seemingly working in the interests of the prosecution, rather than those of their clients.74 For instance, state-appointed lawyers often refused to support their clients’ claims of unlawful detention, in one case reportedly arguing that his client was not unlawfully detained by the SBU, since they had held him in an “apartment”, not in a detention facility.75 In another case, a state-appointed lawyer insisted that her client sign a waiver of the right to appeal, even though national legislation does not foresee such a waiver. 76 In yet another case, a state-appointed lawyer encouraged his client to accept a plea bargain in exchange for a 10year prison term, promising he would be released as part of a prisoner “exchange”. 77 As he was never exchanged, the victim complained to the free legal aid centre, which only required him to write an explanation. 62. In numerous other documented cases, lawyers did not challenge court decisions unfavourable to their clients, such as arbitrary decisions to extend pre-trial detention, or refused to support their clients who wished to complain about human rights violations, including torture or ill-treatment. While in some cases this can be part of the defence’s tactics,78 these individual examples of inaction by state-appointed lawyers may undermine the right of those accused to defend themselves, and risk legitimising these unlawful practices by State actors. 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 14 HRC, General Comment No. 32, para. 34; UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers adopted by the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Havana, Cuba, 27 August to 7 September 1990, Principles 16 and 22. Constitution of Ukraine, article 59; CPC, article 52; Law of Ukraine On Free Legal Aid, No. 3460-VI of 2 June 2011, article 14. All individuals are entitled to free legal assistance when arrested on criminal charges, or when suspected or accused of a crime of special gravity regardless of their detention status. Vulnerable categories of people (e.g. minors, IDPs, low-income population) are also entitled to free legal aid. OHCHR interviews, 23 April, 14 and 28 August 2019. Constituent Congress of Advocates of Ukraine, Rules of Professional Conduct, article 8, available at www.ccbe.eu/fileadmin/speciality_distribution/public/documents/National_Regulations/DEON_Natio nal_CoC/EN_Ukraine_UNBA_Rules_of_Professional_Conduct.pdf; Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, adopted by the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Havana, Cuba 27 August to 7 September 1990, paras. 13(b) and 15, available at www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/roleoflawyers.aspx. Prior to registering his arrest, the SBU officers held the detainee in an apartment. OHCHR interview, 18 April 2019. OHCHR interview, 29 October 2018. As part of the ‘exchange’ or simultaneous release of detainees, envisaged by the Minsk agreements. OHCHR interview, 28 February 2018. The ‘exchange’ procedure is not foreseen in the domestic legislation and therefore it never appeared in the plea bargain. The lawyer convinced his client to plead guilty in exchange for an unenforceable promise made by the prosecution and one can therefore conclude that he did not act in the best interests of his client. For instance, not to pursue their case in exchange for a reduced sentence. In this regard OHCHR notes that at least 25 defendants withdrew their appeals in order to be “exchanged” on 27 December 2017.