liberty through its function of constitutional interpretation and its competence with respect to appeal, habeas corpus and judicial review proceedings, as well as through supervisory visits and interventions by sentence enforcement judges. According to the information gathered by the SPT, the annual visits that the Supreme Court Judges make to the penal establishments in the areas within its remit are essentially formal in nature and are announced in advance. In the two prisons it visited, the SPT received numerous concordant allegations to the effect that officials of the judiciary did not have direct contact with the detainee population in situ, and did not personally check prison conditions. The SPT points out that article 259, subparagraph 8, of the Paraguayan Constitution provides that one of the duties and powers of the Supreme Court of Justice is to “supervise detention centres and prisons”. The SPT further notes that a Prison Supervision Unit established under Supreme Court Agreement No. 30 of 1996 is supposed to discharge this constitutional mandate on behalf of the Court. However, on the grounds of shortages of human and financial resources, the unit concerned does not seem able to carry out its functions fully. 38. The SPT recommends that the Prison Supervision Unit be granted the necessary human and financial resources to carry out the functions assigned to it under Agreement No. 30, in particular its responsibilities for inspecting detention centres and prisons and collecting statistical data. Concerning supervisory visits, the SPT recommends that, to be more effective, they should not be announced in advance and should place the emphasis on direct contacts with persons deprived of their liberty, who should not be pre-selected by prison staff, and that the visits should be followed up by recommendations. 39. The SPT also wishes to receive copies of the last three quarterly reports that the Prison Supervision Unit is required to submit to the Supreme Court under article 2 of Agreement No. 30. 40.The SPT considers that Agreement No. 30 represents a positive step towards fulfilling the judiciary’s responsibilities with regard to prison matters. Nevertheless, the enforcement of criminal penalties could be better regulated through legislative measures. In this connection, note is taken of the establishment in 2004 of the National Commission on Reform of the Penal and Prison Systems. 41.The National Commission produced a Preliminary Draft of a Penal Enforcement Code, which contains important contributions to humanizing prison life, such as strengthening the role of the judge responsible for monitoring sentence enforcement (juez de la ejecución de la condena), the possibility of appeal against disciplinary measures imposed by the prison administration, and the requirement to establish a judges’ office within prisons and detention centres. Despite the advantages that its adoption would represent, this Penal Enforcement Code does not give the judges concerned the necessary powers to act upon their findings relating to situations involving the constitutional rights of persons deprived of their liberty. 42.The Supreme Court is a final instance in the interpretation of the Paraguayan Constitution with respect to fundamental rights. Judges responsible for the monitoring and enforcement of sentence as well as lawyers interviewed by the SPT expressed concern at the absence of guidelines by the Supreme Court concerning fundamental questions of due process, including the legal bases for police detention, the circumstances surrounding extrajudicial confession by the accused, the duration of police detention and access to counsel during initial detention. 43. The SPT wishes to receive a copy of the directives of the Supreme Court concerning the rights to due process of persons deprived of their liberty. 44.Provision is made for habeas corpus in “cases of physical, psychological, or moral abuse against individuals who have been legally deprived of their freedom”. Several lawyers declared such a recourse to be ineffective given the lack of any independent investigation by the judicial authorities and excessive delays in its processing. A case in point brought to the SPT’s attention concerns a habeas corpus filed by two prisoners before the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court. According to this habeas corpus, the prisoners had suffered threats against their life and physical integrity while in prison, having been the victims of violent attacks, including physical and psychological torture by other inmates. 45.The minister concerned ordered “a report on the conditions of imprisonment and the state of health of prisoners according to the relevant medical records”. On receipt of the report, the Criminal Chamber delivered its judgement, based solely on the report of the authorities, dismissing the habeas corpus petition. The Chamber argued that, according to the report submitted by the prison doctor, the prisoners showed no signs of physical assault, and the conditions of detention were good. While the Criminal Chamber urged the authorities to adopt measures to ensure the safety of the appellants, the judgement was not made public until three months after it had been pronounced, which is contrary to the protective intention of habeas corpus. 46.The SPT received information from the Paraguayan authorities according to which 5 per cent of prison inmates had already served their sentence. During its visit to the Tacumbú Prison, the Subcommittee heard testimonies from prisoners claiming that they had served their time. It was informed of the existence in the past of a computer system that provided information to prisoners on the status of their cases. Apparently, as a result of technical problems, this system was not currently functioning. 47. The SPT recommends that: (a) Steps should be taken to review habeas corpus and amparo legislation, and to examine the problems posed in practice by these legal instruments so as to ensure that they are effective in meeting the needs of persons deprived of their liberty; (b) The current status of proceedings with respect to all prisoners claiming to have served their sentences should be verified as a matter of priority with a view to ensuring that, where their claims are confirmed, they may be released immediately; (c) The information system on the status of cases pending should be made operational in all prisons in the country and should be made available for regular consultation by prisoners;