Points to be highlighted/suggested areas for discussion: CASE STUDY 1 39. – Prisoners should normally follow the complaints procedure in the prison; 39. – If the prisoner is not satisfied with the outcome, that is to say with how the procedure was conducted, he or she should have access to an independent body; 39. – The prison director would want to prevent incidents like this occurring because of the damage it can do to staff morale, as well as to the running of the prison, but it is always difficult for a body to investigate itself. On these grounds, and to protect the integrity of the staff, an independent inquiry is likely to be beneficial. CASE STUDY 2 39. – The instruments require that all complaints be comprehensively recorded; 39. – There would need to be details of the complainant, the incident, the place and time, the perpetrator and any witnesses – staff or prisoner; 39. – It would be useful to include all information at this stage, not just what could be confirmed by witnesses. CASE STUDY 3 39. – The prison staff should listen to what the prisoner might wish to say; 39. – The prison staff should follow established procedures about medical checks for all new prisoners; 39. – If the prisoner has been abused, this should be made clear in the medical report; 39. – The instruments state that there should be a willingness to tackle issues positively. This means that, in the case of an incident like this, it should be made clear to the prisoner that if there are grounds for a complaint against the police he will be assisted in making that complaint and it will be dealt with fairly. 129