E/CN.4/2005/6/Add.3 page 19 G. Unsatisfactory protection of vulnerable detainees 69. Notwithstanding the changes introduced in the penal and procedural legislation, there are still no special proceedings for juveniles in conflict with the law. As judges themselves have told the Working Group, there are many flaws in the legislation which do not take into account the special nature of minors. 70. The Working Group notes with concern that the regime of pre-trial detention for minors is the same as for adults. They are kept in the same pre-trial detention centres (SIZOs) as adults and their detention is submitted to the same regime. The harsh conditions, however, lead to worse consequences for minors because of their vulnerability. When minors are convicted, though conditions have improved, limitations on visits continue to apply. 71. Although Belarus has ratified the Convention on the Rights of Child, it does not seem to comply with the principle that detention should be the last resort in the case of juveniles in conflict with the law. According to what the Working Group was told, detention is the rule and not the exception. 72. The Working Group has also noticed that women are kept in the same pre-trial detention centres as male detainees, albeit in different cells, but under the supervision of male guards. This leads to violations of their right to intimacy and other rights. The incommunicado nature of these centres (except for visits by lawyers, which are unrestricted) creates a breach of family bonds, especially with the children. The situation in female prison colonies, although clearly better in terms of visits and overall general conditions, is still too restrictive in respect of communication with the outside world, including detainees’ children, when these are too old to stay in the colonies with their mothers. H. Lack of safeguards regarding detention in psychiatric hospitals 73. The Working Group has been able to visit the State Clinical Mental Hospital in Minsk. It was informed that all persons in this clinic had been placed there by court decision. In the hospital, patients were free to move around, but the Working Group learned from patients that some of them had been placed in isolation cells in the Evaluation Unit, for periods lasting from three to six months. The Working Group would have liked to visit this unit located nearby, but could not and was told by clinic officials that this Evaluation Unit was under the authority of the Prosecutor’s Office and that its prior approval was needed. The Working Group was informed that placement in the Evaluation Unit concerns persons who committed a crime or against whom an investigation has been opened. The persons interviewed asserted that during their detention in the Evaluation Unit they were not brought before a judge or a prosecutor and only had contacts with an investigator. One of the patients confirmed that he was placed in detention by the investigator and that the court decision concerning his detention was taken in absentia. 74. The Working Group is concerned at these statements, which corroborate information received from other sources. Among other information, the Working Group received a complaint from the father of an inmate, who stated that the judicial decision to forcibly place his son in a psychiatric hospital had been taken in his absence, in the absence of his family and of his lawyer, and that none of the petitions he filed was acted upon.