confirm with any certainty whether persons were brought before a judge within the legal time limit at the police stations and gendarmeries visited, since examination of registers revealed various shortcomings in record-keeping (see further below). 2.Recording of custody as a safeguard against ill-treatment 61.Article 52 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the record (procès verbal) drawn up by the judicial police officers should contain the following information: details and length of questionings, date and time of the start of garde à vue, date and time of the end of the garde à vue, and reasons for the garde à vue. The practice of keeping records concerning initial custody varied considerably among the different law enforcement locations visited. Shortcomings identified included the following: Inaccurate recording of date and time of arrival of persons deprived of liberty by law enforcement agents at a police station or gendarmerie. For example, at Dantokpa police station (Cotonou), the delegation noted that a person observed by the delegation to be in police custody at 17:50 on 18 May 2008 was registered in the logbook as arriving on 19 May 2008. Absence of recording of crucial data, such as the age of the detainee. For example, at the Gendarmerie in Godomey, the registers did not indicate the age of the detainees, and there was no separate register for adolescent detainees. Further, as the hour and time of entry and departure from police/gendarme custody were not recorded, the total duration of such custody in many cases could not be ascertained. Most registers also did not indicate whether or when a person had been presented before a judge to renew the garde à vue, making it impossible to check whether the legal time limit had been adhered to. Post facto recording of police custody details in the registers. For example, at the Gendarmerie of Bohicon the delegation observed that the register, which in principle was acceptable as to its format, had not been filled in for several months; staff reported that it was standard practice to transfer information from the daily log sheets into the register at a later date, even though persons deprived of their liberty were required to sign or affix their fingerprints in advance to an empty register. Lack of a uniform system in use for recording police custody. In the ‘registre de garde à vue’, described by gendarmes at Godomey as a uniform book provided to all establishments throughout the country, certain key information was recorded. However, the delegation found that this register was not systematically and consistently used at all law enforcement establishments visited. The delegation saw a variety of means in use for recording initial custody, including a daily log sheet and ‘main courante’ at the Dodji police station in Porto Novo (with date but no hour of entry into custody recorded and no details on time of departure from custody); a “registre de permanence” at the Central police station in Cotonou (with date and hour of entry recorded, but no record of prolongation at weekends); and a “registre des procès-verbaux” at the Gendarmerie in Zogbodomey (with details of the case). Absence of a register of confiscated items. The delegation noted that there was no general practice of recording items of personal property taken from persons deprived of liberty by law enforcement agents. 62.It goes without saying that, in the absence of proper record-keeping, it was impossible for senior staff to oversee effectively the use and duration of police or gendarmerie custody. 63.The SPT considers that the proper recording of deprivation of liberty is one of the fundamental safeguards against ill-treatment, as well as a prerequisite for effective exercise of due process rights, such as the right to challenge the lawfulness of deprivation of liberty and the prompt production of a person in custody before a judge. 64. The SPT recommends that the police and gendarmeries throughout Benin develop a standardised and unified record for registering contemporaneously and comprehensively all key information about every individual ’ s deprivation of liberty, and that staff be trained to use this appropriately and consistently. The SPT further recommends that the record should include the reasons for the deprivation of liberty, the exact time and date when it started, how long it lasted, who was responsible for its authorisation and the identity of the law enforcement officials concerned, precise information about where the person was during the period, and when the person first appeared before a judicial or other authority. Finally, the SPT recommends that all entries in the registers be monitored and countersigned by the directors of each of the establishments. 65.In addition to the absence of a proper recording system, the delegation encountered an even more serious problem: in respect of some people held by law enforcement agencies, there was no official record of their custody at all. 66.For example, at the Gendarmerie of Zogbodomey, the delegation encountered two persons held by the gendarmes after reportedly being involved in embezzling funds from an employer to go into business for themselves. The organisation alleging the embezzlement, which the two readily admitted, had not yet decided to file a formal complaint. Meanwhile, it was seeking restitution from them through the proceeds of their continuing work. When the delegation visited at the weekend, they were in custody in the holding cell pending release into the custody of the employing organisation to work off the debt. The SPT takes no position on the restorative approach to the offence, but is concerned that there was no official record of the fact that persons deprived of liberty were being held by the Zogbodomey gendarmes. 67.Secondly, Commandant Adjoint KOUIHO of the Recherche de la Brigade Territoriale at Bohicon informed the delegation that persons invited for informative talks were not listed among those held in garde à vue, nor in any other record. Any person who is obliged to remain with law enforcement agencies and is not free to leave is deprived of liberty; and such deprivation must be recorded systematically. 68. The SPT recommends that the authorities take immediate steps to ensure that there is an official record of the details of deprivation of liberty of all persons, regardless of their status in law, who are obliged to remain with the law enforcement agencies.