A/HRC/45/13/Add.1 lawyers to their arrested or detained clients, the practice of obstructing access to a lawyer upon initial apprehension of suspects persists. Lawyers’ visits to their clients in both temporary detention and pretrial detention facilities continue to be subject to permission by either the investigator or the judge. It was reported that contracted lawyers are typically prevented from visiting clients held in a pretrial detention facility of the State Committee for National Security. In addition, judges approve or reject the prosecutor’s petition to remand the person in custody only after expiration of his or her temporary arrest for up to 72 hours. Moreover, they do not review whether the person was subjected to human rights violations during and immediately after his or her apprehension and temporary arrest, whether a person has been forcibly disappeared and whether he or she was tortured or otherwise ill-treated. 48. According to several sources, there is also a practice of eluding procedural guarantees through employment of administrative apprehensions, which are temporary restrictions of liberty for certain procedural purposes, and administrative arrests – a form of penalty for misdemeanours, which may follow administrative apprehensions. The Code of Procedure on Administrative Offences provides for certain procedural safeguards – a report should, for example, be drawn up and a detained person’s relative and a lawyer should be notified about the place where the apprehended person is located. As a rule, administrative apprehension cannot exceed three hours, but in exceptional cases, if a person does not have a permanent place of residence and with the court’s approval, the period may be extended for up to 10 days. Apprehended individuals may spend that time anywhere from police stations to national security offices, anti-corruption agencies, customs authorities, forestry and hunting authorities, among others, and without notification, as national legislation does not specify the time period within which relatives and lawyers should be notified of the person’s whereabouts. 49. In addition, unlike in criminal procedure, there is no requirement to record and count the time between actual restriction of liberty and the time of bringing the apprehended person to one of the above-mentioned agencies. That practice may amount to short-term enforced disappearances during which, reportedly, abuses are widespread. It is during those times that apprehended individuals are threatened and ill-treated, or even tortured, in order to obtain confessions and otherwise to build a criminal case. Those abuses often continue after an apprehended person is penalized for misdemeanour and serves administrative arrest for up to 15 days. There are reported instances of individuals being called to appear before the authorities as witnesses and subjected to abuse for that same purpose. 50. The Working Group received reports of isolation cells being used in detention facilities where detainees are held incommunicado. Allegedly, in some cases, they are held for prolonged periods ranging from six months to three years without their families being officially notified; they receive information on the whereabouts of their detained relatives only through unofficial sources. That is a reflection of the inadequate system of registration and notification in places of deprivation of liberty (see paras. 26–29 above). The Working Group visited two disciplinary cells in a detention facility and was disturbed by the inhumane conditions of detention. The cell consisted of a small room with no natural light, and the authorities indicated that individuals could be held in it for up to 15 days. 51. The Working Group was informed that there is limited monitoring and investigation of complaints related to torture and ill-treatment, falsification of arrest protocols or unlawful arrest. The International Committee of the Red Cross does not have access to places of detention in Tajikistan. The Working Group notes positively the establishment of a joint non-governmental organization and Office of the Ombudsman monitoring group which reportedly, since February 2014, has been conducting up to 16 visits a year to closed and semi-closed detention facilities. While the existence of the joint monitoring group is welcome, it apparently does not have access to some facilities, particularly the temporary detention facility of the State National Security Committee. The Working Group’s request to visit that facility located in the capital city was not granted. The Working Group understands that the monitoring group is also unable to carry out special visits following specific complaints. The Working Group notes the information received from the Government that no complaints related to enforced disappearance have been made in the past five years. However, the Working Group highlights the fact that that may be linked to the lack of an autonomous crime of enforced disappearance in the State’s legislation, to underreporting, to a lack of awareness of the fact that non-compliance with procedural 12