- 19 25. It is also essential that police officers view ill-treatment not only as a criminal act, but also as an unprofessional means of carrying out their duties. In this respect, the CPT recommends that the national authorities pursue their policy of strict selection criteria at the time of recruitment and the provision of adequate professional training, both initial and in-service. Further, there should be active attempts to recruit police officers from established minority groups within the country. In addition, there must be a clear understanding that culpability for ill-treatment extends beyond the actual perpetrators to anyone who knows, or should know, that ill-treatment is occurring/has occurred and fails to act to prevent or report it. This implies the development of a clear reporting line to a distinct authority outside of the police unit concerned as well as a framework for the legal protection of individuals who disclose information on ill-treatment and other malpractice. The CPT recommends the adoption of such “whistle-blower” protective measures. 3. Safeguards against ill-treatment 26. The CPT remains concerned that formal safeguards against ill-treatment (notably, the right to have the fact of one’s detention notified to a relative or another third party and the rights of access to a lawyer and to a doctor) do not apply from the very outset of a person’s deprivation of liberty and, more generally, remain ineffective in practice. Further, persons deprived of their liberty were still not always informed without delay of their rights. In sum, the situation has not changed since the CPT’s 2009 and 2011 visits. a. notification of custody 27. According to paragraph 3 (d) of Police Circular 4803/22/44 on the “treatment and rights of persons detained by Police authorities”, the police must facilitate the telephone contact between the detainee and their families in order to inform them of the place and reasons of their detention. However, the information gathered in the course of the 2013 visit indicated that the right to inform a third person of one’s detention was not complied with diligently in all cases. The CPT’s delegation met a number of persons in various police stations visited who complained that they had not been able to contact anyone during the first 24 hours of their detention or even longer; at times this was because they could not afford to buy a phone card. Any possibility, exceptionally, to delay exercise of the right to inform a third party of one’s detention should be clearly circumscribed in law. Despite the CPT having advocated such a measure in previous reports, no such regulation has been adopted. The CPT once again calls upon the Greek authorities to take the necessary steps to ensure that persons deprived of their liberty by the Hellenic Police have an effective right to notify a close relative or third party of their choice of their situation, as from the very outset of their deprivation of liberty. If necessary, persons should be provided with the possibility of a free phone call. Further, legal provisions should be adopted spelling out the circumstances when the exercise of the right to inform a third party of one’s custody can be delayed and making any such delay subject to appropriate safeguards (e.g. any delay to be recorded in writing along with the reason, and to require the approval of a prosecutor or judge) and strictly limited in time.