treatment. 35.In addition, information supplied to the Subcommittee indicates that, at the time of this writing, there were 112 public defenders who dealt with criminal cases and 272 criminal court judges, whereas there were over 300 public prosecutors assigned to criminal cases (including deputy prosecutors). Having a suitable ratio between public defenders and the prosecutors and judges assigned to the various types of courts within the justice system (e.g., one defence counsel for every two prosecutors, plus one defence counsel for each court in which oral proceedings are held, plus those needed to handle the appeals workload and the sentence enforcement stage of proceedings), in conjunction with an administrative support system and staffing table that are also commensurate with those of the Office of the Public Prosecutor and the courts, is essential in order to ensure the necessary equality of arms. 36.In 2009, public defence counsel in Paraguay handled 27,654 criminal cases, which was almost twice as much as the caseload in 2002. Public defenders are also called upon to take on the cases of most of the persons being held in pretrial detention. The Subcommittee was informed, for example, that the cases of 70 per cent of the prison population in Tacumbú National Prison were being handled by public defenders. At the time of the visit, however, 53 of the slightly more than 100 posts in the Office of the Public Defender, which handles cases in both adult and youth courts, were vacant. The public defence apparatus in Paraguay is weak and overextended and is not in a position to guarantee a proper or effective defence. 37.The Subcommittee has been informed that a draft organization act for the Office of the Public Defender was submitted to the Chamber of Deputies in November 2008. Information posted on the legislature’s web page indicates that the bill was rejected by two committees and that no further action in that connection has been taken since August 2009. 38.The Subcommittee underscores the importance of providing professional legal defence services free of charge as a means of helping to prevent torture and ill-treatment and of ensuring genuine equality of arms in respect of the Office of the Public Defender and the Office of the Public Prosecutor. The Subcommittee also wishes to emphasize that the Office of the Public Defender must be operationally independent and must have its own budget in order to perform its work effectively. The Subcommittee recommends that the State party, and the legislature in particular, take steps to secure passage of the existing bill or of another bill that will ensure this institution’s operational, administrative and budgetary autonomy. 39.Office of the Public Prosecutor. In its earlier report, the Subcommittee expressed its concern about the fact that, between the years 2000 and 2008, only 1 out of the 230 cases relating to the offence of torture had resulted in a conviction. Organization Act No. 1562/2000 (art. 24) notwithstanding, the Prosecutor’s Office has told the Subcommittee that it does not have powers of supervision that would permit it to check on the physical condition of accused persons or conditions in places of detention. The Subcommittee’s representatives would have liked to have the opportunity to meet with the Attorney-General during their follow-up visit to discuss this and other matters, such as the duties of the Human Rights Directorate of the Office of the Public Prosecutor. However, although they arrived at the time of their appointment with him and waited for over 45 minutes, the Attorney-General did not receive the members of the delegation, who ultimately had to leave in order to keep their scheduled appointments with other persons. The Subcommittee finds this situation regrettable, as it has prevented the Subcommittee from formulating additional recommendations for this key institutional actor in the prevention of torture and ill-treatment. C.Situation of persons deprived of their liberty 1.National police stations 40.The Subcommittee’s representatives returned to three of the police stations that the delegation had gone to see during the first regular visit: Station No. 3 in Asunción, Station No. 5 in Asunción and Station No. 1 in San Lorenzo. During these visits, the Subcommittee’s representatives examined the registers of detainees and spoke with police commanders and officers at these stations and with persons being held in custody. 41.With respect to Station No. 1 in San Lorenzo, the Subcommittee regrets to report, as was also the case during its earlier visit, that the station commander was uncooperative. On this occasion, he interrupted interviews of detainees in a very aggressive manner and made it necessary to suspend the visit temporarily. This incident was swiftly resolved thanks to the intervention of the Ministry of the Interior. The Subcommittee informed local authorities about what had happened so that the State party could take the necessary action. The Subcommittee recommends that the State party take the necessary steps to ensure that incidents of this sort do not occur in future and asks that it be kept abreast of the outcome of the measures adopted in this connection. 42.It became evident to the Subcommittee’s representatives that progress had not been made in the areas covered by the Subcommittee’s recommendations. The information gathered during the interviews clearly pointed to the continued violation of the rights of detainees which serve as safeguards against torture and other ill-treatment (e.g., access to a physician and notification of a family member or other person close to the detainee). Regrettably, the Subcommittee once again received credible, detailed reports of torture and ill-treatment at the hands of police personnel. 43.Arrest records. Based on the information gathered during the follow-up visit, the Subcommittee regrets to note, once again, that no substantial improvement has been made in the system for registering detainees. The system remains unsatisfactory, since it does not permit proper monitoring of the arrival and departure of detainees or of procedural guarantees. 44.The “events log” continues to be the preferred form of record-keeping, although the delegation of the Subcommittee noted that, at the time of the visit, one of the police stations was using a “registry of detainees”, which included information on the date and time of detainees’ entry. On one occasion, a detainee was identified whose entry and departure had not been recorded, and there was thus no evidence that he had been at the police station. Because of the vulnerable position in which detainees are placed under such