113.During the visit, the delegation reviewed the custody records in all police stations visited and was informed about the system for keeping of registers and books. In some police stations visited, the delegation was also informed that the police have an obligation to provide an arrest sheet for the detainee within 24 hours of the arrest. At the time of the visit, the records were mainly kept manually. The SPT notes the information provided by senior police officers that an electronic system of recordkeeping has started to be implemented. 114.When reviewing the registers, the delegation noted recurring omissions of important items of information, such as the time of release from custody or transfer to another detention facility and the number of the cell where the detainee was placed. Furthermore, the registers contained no records that information on rights was given to the detainees. 115.The lack of systematic record keeping leads invariably to inaccuracies and incomplete records which cannot be cross-referenced. The SPT can cite as an example the case of Mr. Hussein Solah who was found dead in the harbour of Malé on 15 April 2007: The registers at the centre confirmed that he was arrested on 9 April 2007 for suspicion of possession of drugs. On 12 April he complained of headaches at 21:17. When offered medication, he refused it. He was moved to cell number 2. On 13 April at 00:40, he was removed to cell number 5, as he was violent. However, no further time of release was recorded in the log books, up until he was found dead on 15 April 2007. Further to the request for the death certificate made in the n ote v erbale dated 3 March 2008, the SPT requests a copy of the autopsy report of Mr. Solah. 116.The SPT considers that the proper recording of deprivation of liberty, including all movements of detainees, possible complaints, requests and subsequent follow-up, is one of the fundamental safeguards against ill-treatment, as well as a prerequisite for effective exercise of due process rights, such as the right to challenge the lawfulness of deprivation of liberty. Furthermore, proper recording of custody is also a tool that enables proper and effective supervision of custody by officers exercising supervisory functions and serves as protection for police officers against false allegations about ill-treatment or omissions. 117. The SPT recommends that the Maldives Police Service develop a standardised and unified record for registering contemporaneously and comprehensively all key information about an individual ’ s deprivation of liberty and that police staff be trained to use this appropriately and consistently. The SPT recommends that the records should include at least the following information: (a) The reasons for the deprivation of liberty, the exact time when it started and how long it lasted; (b) Person responsible for authorization of the deprivation of the liberty and person making the entry in the register; (c) Precise information about where the person was held during that period, including any movements within and between establishments; (d) When the person first appeared before a judicial or other authority ; (e) Requests and complaints; (f) Time when the person was informed about his/her rights, time of notification of custody, the identity of the notified person as well as the officer who made the notification; (g) Time when the person was seen by a doctor or received a visit from a family member, lawyer or other person. 118. Furthermore, the SPT recommends that, in order to ensure systematic recording of all relevant information, supervising officers should exercise strict oversight of record keeping. 10. Complaints process 119.As noted in the chapter I above, investigation of complaints against the Police will be vested in the not yet functioning Police Integrity Commission established in August 2006 and it is also possible to lodge a complaint to the HRCM. Furthermore, the delegation was informed by senior police officers that an internal investigation department examines complaints, and that a police disciplinary board had been established. The SPT requests the Maldivian authorities to provide further information on the mandate and powers of the internal investigation department and the Police Disciplinary Board, the number and type of complaints lodged during the years 2007 - 2008 and the outcome of these investigations. The SPT also requests information as to whether there are any other bodies or offices vested with powers to examine complaints made against police, and if so, about their mandates, the number of cases examined in 2007 and 2008 and the outcome of the examination. 120.During the visit, the delegation gained the impression that there are no formal rules or established practices regarding ways to allow a detainee to lodge a complaint about his or her treatment in custody. Should a detainee wish to lodge a complaint, he or she appears to be dependent on the good will and understanding of the officer on duty who, in practice, decides whether or not to transmit the complaint to the competent authorities. Furthermore, the delegation was told by many detainees that they had no trust in the system of confidential complaints to outside bodies. For example at the Addu Atholhu police station detainees stated that they would not trust even the HRCM, as they perceived it as being part of the Government. The SPT notes with concern that, in some establishments visited, detainees also alleged that there had been reprisals against persons who had lodged a complaint. 121.One of the basic safeguards against ill-treatment is the right of a detainee or his/her counsel to make a request or to lodge a complaint regarding treatment in custody to the authorities responsible for the administration of the place of detention and to higher authorities and, when necessary, to appropriate authorities vested with powers of review and redress.