Justice complaining about conditions but had received no reply. 302.The SPT considers that one of the basic safeguards against ill-treatment is the right of an imprisoned person or his counsel to make a request or complaint regarding his treatment, in particular in case of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, to the authorities responsible for the administration of the place of detention and to higher authorities and, when necessary, to appropriate authorities vested with powers of review or redress. The SPT recommends that the authorities ensure that there is an effective, confidential and independent complaints system in operation. IV.Cooperation A.Facilitation of the visit 303.The SPT recognises that efforts had been made by the authorities to facilitate the visit. In particular, various documents requested before the visit were provided to the SPT, including legal texts, some statistics and information on the addresses of law enforcement establishments. In this regard the SPT notes that the official list of police stations provided to the SPT included Zogbodomey (Commissariat de police de localité); the delegation was informed however by local law enforcement officials that such a police station has never existed. B.Access 304.The delegation encountered a number of problems relating to access. 305.A fundamental problem was the absence of credentials from the Ministry of Defence until Saturday 24 May 2008, that is two days before the departure of the delegation. As a result, the SPT was denied access to holding cells at the Brigade Territoriale and Brigade de Recherches of Porto Novo. However, the SPT delegation did gain access to the holding cells at the Brigade Territoriale of Godomey, when it made an unannounced visit on 18 May 2008. Access was possible owing to the presence of Commandant Valette Chrysostome, who, despite having reportedly received no information concerning the SPT, understood and acknowledged the obligation to facilitate the delegation’s task. 306.A further problem arose from inadequate communication by the authorities of essential information concerning the SPT and its mandate to law enforcement officials at all levels. By way of illustration, the delegation was denied access to persons deprived of their liberty at Dantokpa police station, Cotonou on 18 May 2008, as the delegation was only provided with credentials from the Ministry of the Interior on 19 May 2008. After intervention by the liaison officer, access was finally achieved on 20 May 2008 and 21 May 2008. The initial denial of access was a serious breach of the obligation to grant the SPT with access to any place of deprivation of liberty and to any person held there. When the delegation subsequently spoke in private with persons held at Dantokpa, it received accounts of serious ill-treatment; the delegation was able to document medical evidence highly consistent with those allegations and found weapons corresponding strikingly to the injuries observed. The refusal on the first visit to the police station to grant confidential communication between the SPT and persons in custody could easily be construed as an attempt to conceal evidence of ill-treatment. 307.At Cotonou Prison, the delegation encountered initial resistance concerning access to prisoners sentenced to death. The delegation was informed that it could only communicate with these prisoners through the bars of the cell door. The SPT considers that conducting an interview through a barred door could be perceived by prisoners as degrading treatment. The delegation insisted on its right of access. After consultations with the prison management, arrangements were made for a member of the delegation to enter the cell shared by the 16 prisoners sentenced to death. The interview took place inside the cell as a group interview. 308.At Abomey Prison, the SPT’s initial attempt to carry out a night visit was refused by the prison authorities on the grounds of security. When the delegation arrived, there were no security guards to be seen at the outer gate and only one at the inner gate. After consultations with the director of the prison, it was agreed that arrangements would be made to reinforce security on the following evening so that the SPT delegation could visit the prison at night. After initial delays the following evening and intervention by the liaison officer, the delegation eventually gained access to the prison to visit cells at 23.00 hours. 309.On this first SPT visit to Benin, the authorities were not familiar with the SPT’s methods of working, despite preparatory explanations. The SPT trusts that on subsequent visits persons acting on behalf of the State will be better prepared to facilitate swift access for the SPT delegation to carry out its work, including without prior notice and at any time of the day or night. C.Repercussions of the visit 310.The SPT has serious concerns about the possibility of repercussions following the visit. 311.Persons deprived of liberty in different locations expressed their fear of retaliation for speaking to the delegation. The delegation was told that many people deprived of their liberty were also warned not to talk frankly to SPT delegation. 312.Any intimidation of or repercussions to persons deprived of their liberty are unacceptable and in breach of the State’s obligation under the OPCAT to co-operate with the SPT. The SPT invokes Article 15 of the OPCAT and calls upon the Benin authorities to ensure that there are no reprisals as a result of the SPT visit. This matter was raised during the preliminary observations on 26 May 2008. The SPT requests the authorities for detailed information about the steps they have taken to ensure that no repercussions were experienced after the visit. D.Dialogue with and feedback/responses of the authorities