- 30 The CPT recommends that the Greek authorities put in place a comprehensive strategy to combat ill-treatment by the police, which addresses the fundamental flaws in the current system of administrative and criminal investigations into allegations of ill-treatment, in the light of the previous paragraphs. To this end, the CPT would like to receive an initial response within three months on the steps planned to address this matter and a further response within six months on the concrete action taken. 4. Safeguards against ill-treatment 45. Once again, the CPT has to reiterate the findings from its previous visits: formal safeguards against ill-treatment (including the rights of notification of custody, access to a lawyer and access to a doctor) do not for the most part apply in practice from the very outset of a person’s deprivation of liberty and more generally remain ineffective, despite the existence of clear rules.33 46. As regards notification of custody, the CPT’s delegation received many complaints from persons who were – or had recently been – in police custody, according to which they had not been able to notify promptly their next-of-kin of their detention. A number of persons alleged that, in practice, they were only allowed to inform a relative or another third party of their situation after a first round of police interviews – several hours after having been arrested. Several detained persons claimed that they had not been able to contact anyone during the first 24 hours of their detention or even longer; some because they were prevented by police officers from making a call and others due to the fact that they were unable to purchase a phone card. The CPT once again calls upon the Greek authorities to take the necessary steps to ensure that every detained person is granted the right to notify a close relative or third party of their choice of their situation and placed in a position to effectively exercise this right as from the very outset of their deprivation of liberty. 47. As for the right of access to a lawyer, no progress has been observed since the CPT’s 2013 visit. Despite the fact that the presence of a lawyer is institutionalised in most stages of the criminal and administrative proceedings – the notable exception being the lawyer’s presence during the interview of their clients (see below) – this right generally remains “theoretical and illusory” for those who do not have the financial means to pay for the services of a lawyer. The majority of persons interviewed by the CPT’s delegation claimed that they did not benefit from the presence of a lawyer during the initial period of their deprivation of liberty – and particularly prior to or during questioning by security police officers – when the risk of intimidation and physical ill-treatment is greatest. This is mainly due to the fact that legal aid is not available at the stage of police investigation or when criminal suspects are questioned by the police. Theoretically, they have the right to consult with a lawyer prior to and during interrogation by the police but, in practice, the unavailability of legal aid at this stage means that this right is ineffective for most people. 33 See CPT/Inf (2014) 27, paragraphs 27-32.