CAT/OP/BEN/3 prosecutor, but it may not exceed eight days. The Subcommittee noted that, in general, the 48-hour period was respected and that, in practice, it was the State prosecutor who granted extensions. The Subcommittee is of the view that there has been progress and that efforts have been made to ensure that this period is respected. There is still room for improvement, however. In certain cases, this time limit had been exceeded, giving rise to abusive custody. 37. The Subcommittee recommends that the State party be especially careful to ensure that, in all cases, the limits on the duration of the custody of suspects are fully respected in practice. 3. Record-keeping 38. The Subcommittee noted the efforts made by the State party to develop a methodology for a unified register in police and gendarmerie stations and to train staff to set up such a register. The police and gendarmerie stations had registers that were fairly well kept. The Subcommittee welcomes this positive development. It notes that the standardization of registers should make it possible to collect and record information on the reasons for arrest, the exact time and date of the outset of detention, the length of detention, the end date, the identities of the detained person and the officer who authorized detention, and specifics concerning the place of detention, the timing of the first appearance before a judicial authority, the extension of detention, the authority that made the decision to extend detention and the length of the extension. 39. The Subcommittee noted with concern that there were lapses in the maintenance of registers and that they were not uniform in all the places it visited. In the police and gendarmerie stations, the registers did not include information on the age, the release or the time of release of persons taken into custody or even the date of the outset of custody. There were also failures to record data in real time. In one police station, only the occurrence book was kept in real time, whereas the custody register was filled in after the fact — it was two months behind on the day of the visit. The Subcommittee remains concerned about the lack of rigour and systematization with which information about persons detained in police and gendarmerie stations is recorded. 40. The Subcommittee recommends that the State party continue making efforts to put in place, in all police and gendarmerie stations, a standardized system to record strictly, systematically and comprehensively information about persons placed in custody. 4. Allegations of torture and ill-treatment 41. The Subcommittee was informed of but few allegations of torture or ill-treatment of persons in custody. The Subcommittee did not see or meet persons in custody with marks on their bodies suggesting that they had been subjected to ill-treatment. However, the Subcommittee remains concerned about the information provided by some prisoners at the Abomey prison, who stated that they had been subjected to violence while in police or gendarmerie custody. 42. The Subcommittee considers that the situation has changed for the better and that there has been a significant improvement. It encourages the State party to be particularly careful to ensure that, in all places, persons in custody are not subjected to ill-treatment; that, in the event of ill-treatment, they may file complaints; that immediate, impartial investigations of these violations (Convention against Torture, arts. 12 and 13) are carried out; and that the perpetrators, if found guilty, are punished. B. 1. Prisons Overcrowding and physical conditions of detention 43. At the time of the Subcommittee’s visit, the civilian prisons in Cotonou and Abomey were still overcrowded. The Subcommittee’s previous recommendations had clearly not been acted on. GE.18-16165 7