immigration detention. This practice intimidates the victims and seriously hinders their ability to freely explain how they were ill-treated. Difficulties in accessing evidence of violence Although victims are not required to prove a crime in order to file a complaint, they still need to put together sufficient evidence to be believed and to allow Law Enforcement Authorities to investigate efficiently. This is particularly the case for detainees who are not trusted; they are often perceived as having a vested interest in making a complaint, for example to be released sooner. It is therefore essential for them to have access to relevant evidence to support their complaint, including medical records, recordings from audiovisual cameras (where available), witness statements and the identity of the offender. Limited access to audio-visual recordings (if any) In many Detention Centres, audio-visual cameras, when they are used, are placed in corridors and common areas.89 Audio-visual recordings may provide a useful source of evidence of abuse, violence and ill-treatment. In practice, however, there are numerous obstacles preventing victims from relying on recordings: • Recordings are automatically erased after a set period of time (often a few days) and recorded over. Even when the Detention Administration is aware of a victimisation situation (through a complaint or other means), it is rarely proactive in systematically preserving images.90 • Lawyers and detainees are not systematically provided with the recordings when they ask for them. The Detention Administration sometimes relies on privacy arguments to oppose disclosing images. It may also delay or refuse to give access to the images to investigators.91 • Cameras only cover certain places and cannot capture, for instance, what occurs in a cell.92 Perpetrators of violence, particularly Detention Staff, know where cameras are installed and therefore may be able to avoid their actions from being caught on camera. Difficult access to quality and effective medical care A medical record is often the best piece of evidence to prove that the victim’s account of illegitimate violence is consistent with physical signs. Unlike victims in the outside world, detained victims’ access to medical care depends on the willingness of the Detention Administration to ensure access to medical staff for a consultation, on the availability of doctors, their professionalism and independence. In practice, access to medical assistance may be delayed or obstructed when requests for medical assistance goes through non-medical Detention Staff. Generally, Detention Staff are not sufficiently proactive in referring injured detainees to their medical colleagues. In the Netherlands for instance, although doctors generally are made available upon request by a detainee, in some Detention Centres, staff act as a filter and may delay access to medical care.87 In Sweden and in Belgium, a detainee may sometimes wait for days to see a nurse or doctor. Even when a medical examination takes place, this is not necessarily sufficient to provide evidence of violence: • Medical examinations are often too short to allow the detainee to fully explain the facts and for the examiner to conduct a sufficiently detailed examination. • Detainees’ injuries are not properly documented in medical records (no photographs, lack of detailed description) which makes the records insufficient for the purposes of evidence in a criminal investigation.88 • Interpreters are rarely present to facilitate communication between the doctor or nurse and the detained victim. • Medical examinations are often not conducted confidentially. Detention Staff (or police) may be present or sufficiently close to hear the detainees’ account, which may have a chilling effect on their willingness to report abuse. In Hungary, for instance, police officers accompany victims to medical visits in all cases of 87 88 89 90 91 92 34 Difficulties in identifying Detention Staff responsible for violence or ill-treatment or witnesses Typically, when a complaint is made, detainees are asked to identify when and where the alleged violence occurred, and who committed it. In detention, such factual identification is not easy. In Belgium and France for instance, in the context of pre-trial detention, Detention Staff often do not wear or hide the badges identifying them. It makes the identification of offenders more complicated for victims of crime. In addition, the Detention Administration does not always keep a detailed record of the whereabouts of staff throughout the day and night, and of the Detention Staff involved in disciplinary sanctions or security measures against detainees (such as body or cell searches) when violence may occur. It is therefore difficult to identify, after the facts, who was involved in a violent episode against a detainee. Difficulty in proving that violence by Detention Staff is illegitimate Contrary to ECHR standards on the reversal of the burden of proof discussed above, in practice there is often an assumption that violence by Detention Staff against See also, Observatoire International des Prisons (France), Omerta, Opacité, Impunité, Enquête sur les violences commises par des agents pénitentiaires sur les personnes détenues, 2019, pp. 59-60, available at: https://oip.org/publication/rapport-denquete-sur-les-violences-commises-par-des-agents-penitentiaires-sur-les-personnes-detenues/. Ibid. Ibid, p. 61. Ibid. Ibid, p. 62. Ibid, p. 61.