with custodial facilities will be reduced and existing facilities will be improved. The Subcommittee hopes that these measures will improve the conditions of detention, which, as discussed later on in this report, are extremely unsatisfactory at present. 27.The Subcommittee is pleased to take note of the establishment, by Decree No. 1811 of 15 April 2009, of the Human Rights Directorate within the Ministry of the Interior, which currently has a staff of six and could potentially serve as a key component in the police oversight system whose establishment has been requested by the Subcommittee. The Subcommittee recommends that the current structure of the Ministry of the Interior’s Human Rights Directorate be strengthened. 28.The Subcommittee takes note of the information provided to it concerning administrative proceedings undertaken before the Police Justice Directorate involving charges against police personnel for acts of torture or other ill-treatment, which indicates that the number of such proceedings increased from 21 in 2004 to 37 in 2009, with the resulting penalties ranging from eight days of suspension to dismissal. The Subcommittee also takes note of the fact that complaints of ill-treatment not only give rise to administrative inquiries but are also referred to the Public Prosecutor’s Office for criminal investigation. 29. In order to heighten the deterrent effect of administrative sanctions, the Subcommittee recommends that statistics on the number of administrative inquiries and the penalties imposed be made public and, in particular, be brought to the attention of members of the n ational p olice f orce. In addition, the Subcommittee recommends that the Ministry of the Interior follow up on the cases submitted to the Public Prosecutor’s Office. The Subcommittee asks that it be provided with information on the structure and role of the Department of Internal Affairs of the National Police and on current plans to strengthen it and to ensure its independence and effectiveness in carrying out impartial investigations. 30.Ministry of the Interior officials recognized the need to continue their efforts to set up an effective system for lodging complaints at police headquarters that shields complainants from reprisals. The Subcommittee takes note of the importance of establishing procedures for the proper and confidential referral of complaints brought by detainees that will also protect them from reprisals. Ministry officials have informed the Subcommittee about the Citizens’ Complaint Centre, which can receive reports over a toll-free telephone line, through the Ministry’s webpage, and in person. As a provisional measure until a formal system has been established, the Subcommittee recommends that the existence of the Centre be publicized and that the public be made aware that the Centre can receive complaints of torture or ill-treatment by police personnel. The corresponding information materials should include the placement of posters in every police station in the view of persons who have been deprived of their liberty and in customer service areas in which people may be submitting complaints concerning ill-treatment or any other contravention or dereliction of duty by the police. Such complaints should be received by an independent body with the authority to take action (e.g., the Human Rights Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior), should be reviewed in internal proceedings at which administrative penalties may be imposed and should, when appropriate, be referred to the Public Prosecutor’s Office. 31.With respect to the improvement of working conditions for police personnel, the Ministry of the Interior has informed the Subcommittee that police were given a 25 per cent wage increase in 2009 and that a new law regulating the wages and benefits of specialized personnel is to be drafted. The Subcommittee regrets, however, that, according to the information available to it at this time, police personnel are still not being supplied with service weapons but must instead obtain their own. 32.Judiciary. During the follow-up visit, the Subcommittee’s representatives saw how excessive delays in processing some criminal cases adversely affected the prison population. Some of the main effects include overpopulation and crowding and the existence of a large number of unsentenced detainees in the country’s jails. The Subcommittee was informed that one of the causes of these delays was that the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court is working at 50 per cent of capacity because it is not fully staffed, as one of the Supreme Court justices has retired and his replacement has not yet been named by Congress. The Subcommittee finds this situation to be regrettable and recommends that the State party take the necessary steps to ensure that a replacement for the outgoing judge is designated and that, until then, it use other means to reduce the Criminal Chamber’s case backlog, such as provisionally designating appeals court judges to serve in the Criminal Chamber on a temporary basis. 33.The Subcommittee has also been informed that prison authorities have wanted to transfer inmates to other facilities where the prison population is smaller in order to avoid or relieve overcrowding in certain prisons. Such transfers have been objected to by the judiciary (chiefly enforcement judges), however, on the grounds that prior authorization by the courts is required before a prisoner can be transferred from one prison to another. In view of the serious overcrowding that exists in facilities such as the Tacumbú National Prison, the Subcommittee feels it is necessary for State authorities to find a means of promptly overcoming the difficulties that are currently preventing inmates from being transferred to prisons where the conditions are more suitable. The Subcommittee recommends that the State party look into possible solutions for expediting transfers while upholding the rights of persons deprived of their liberty, particularly the right to be in contact with their families and the right to due process. 34.Legal assistance. Officials from the Office of the Public Defender who met with the Subcommittee’s representatives during the follow-up mission again raised the issue of the institution’s lack of autonomy, since, in the absence of a specific organizational law regarding the Office’s structure, it is simply a division of the Supreme Court. This situation shows up the disparities between the resources available to the Office of the Public Defender and the Office of the Public Prosecutor, which has been an autonomous agency for around a decade now (Act No. 1560/2000) and has expanded much more than the Office of the Public Defender has. It is enough to simply visit the two offices to see how unequal the distribution of resources between them is: whereas the Office of the Public Prosecutor is housed in various buildings with modern facilities, the Office of the Public Defender is located on one floor of the courthouse. Public prosecutors’ salaries are higher than those of public defenders, and senior prosecutors can earn more than judges. These differences between the two institutions reflect a public policy preference for a justice system that places priority on criminal prosecution while failing to provide adequate human and material resources for the implementation of the system of guarantees administered by the Office of the Public Defender. Such a system may not be the most appropriate one for preventing torture and ill-