A/HRC/37/27 interviewing techniques. The representative stressed that the Convention against Torture Initiative, established by Chile, Denmark, Ghana, Indonesia and Morocco, supported States in ratifying and implementing the Convention. The Initiative had launched three online tools in October 2017 on: developing national anti-torture strategies and action plans; safeguards in the first hours of police custody; and non-coercive investigative interviewing. 25. A representative of a national preventive mechanism highlighted the importance of testing the motivation of applicants for posts in the police and prison service to avoid employing people seeking positions of power in order to abuse vulnerable groups. A representative of a national human rights institution noted the lack of data concerning the number of detainees facing torture. The representative thought that a global database gathering information about the proportion of detainees subjected to torture in all States and regions would be helpful. 26. A representative of an NGO observed that prosecutorial pressure on police to obtain confessions played a role in the incidence of torture and ill-treatment in police custody, and emphasized the importance of political leadership in signalling that torture was unacceptable. The representative referred to paragraph 16 of the Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors, which provided that prosecutors should refuse to use evidence that they knew or believed to have been obtained by torture. They also referred to article 4.3 (f) of the International Association of Prosecutors’ Standards of Professional Responsibility and Statement of the Essential Duties and Rights of Prosecutors. The representative highlighted the importance of providing training on investigative interviewing, the use of evidentiary tools, such as fingerprinting, and the chain of custody of physical evidence. 27. The Chair of the Committee against Torture moderated the second part of the session. The panellists were: Muluka Miti-Drummond, Senior Programme Lawyer at the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute; Suzanne Jabbour, President of the Restart Centre, Lebanon; and Sofien Mezghich, Adviser and spokesperson at the General Directorate of Prisons and Rehabilitation. 28. Ms. Miti-Drummond addressed the ways in which lawyers could prevent torture in places of detention. The role of prosecutors was to seek justice, not to put someone in jail, and that meant ensuring that the right person was prosecuted. Prosecutors should make sure that any information obtained through torture was not used in their cases. She observed that torture occurred most often when detainees were unable to communicate with the outside world and emphasized that detainees, even those in solitary confinement, should have access to their lawyers. She encouraged States to replicate the “lawyer at first instance” scheme followed by the Geneva Bar Association, under the Swiss Criminal Procedure Code, whereby detainees saw a lawyer within the first hour of arrest. She suggested that where such a scheme was not possible, lawyers and representatives of NGOs and bar associations should visit places of detention to ask why detainees were questioned without having a lawyer present. She acknowledged that, in some countries, there was a lack of lawyers. In such circumstances, it was important to use paralegals. They were not a replacement for qualified legal counsel but were a useful stopgap. In some States, only a few lawyers were women or members of ethnic minorities. 29. Ms. Miti-Drummond stressed that lawyers were entitled to know the reasons for their clients’ detention, the lawfulness of the detention, the legal basis upon which their clients were being detained and the length of such detention. Such information might assist them in challenging their clients’ detention. She encouraged lawyers to bring habeas corpus hearings when an arrest could be challenged on the grounds of lawfulness, and make sure that bail was applied for whenever possible, so as to reduce the number of detainees in pretrial detention. Lawyers could also raise the case of detainees who were not formally their clients but whose situation they became aware of when visiting a place of detention. Lawyers needed to understand that they had the right to see their client from the moment they were detained. They should insist if the police refused, petition a court for access to their clients if necessary and also raise issues of access during trial. Additionally, they should question whether evidence was properly collected and whether their client gave information freely. Ms. Miti-Drummond explained that clients did not always realize that the treatment to which they had been subjected constituted torture or ill-treatment and lawyers should help them to recognize actions that constituted ill-treatment, such as 9