CAT/OP/CHL/1 31. The Subcommittee recommends that the State party undertake a thorough evaluation of the use of plea-bargaining procedures, ensure that the rights to defend oneself in court and to due process are effectively enforced and ensure that no pressure of any kind is exerted on accused persons to convince them to plea bargain. 32. The Subcommittee noted the inappropriate use of the Office of the Attorney General’s prosecution support system database to introduce information into court proceedings regarding defendants’ alleged criminal history. This information is compiled entirely by the Attorney General’s Office and is based on events that have not necessarily been proven to have occurred by a court of law. 33. The Subcommittee observed that in the high-security prison in Santiago, persons deprived of their liberty were categorized as “anarchists/subversives”, among other categories, on a whiteboard in the prison director’s office. When questioned by the Subcommittee, the director said that the categories were based on information available from the Prison Service and in court decisions. The Subcommittee also noted the appearance of the term “former subversive”, in a court decision, next to the name of a person deprived of liberty. 34. The Subcommittee recommends that the Attorney General’s Office instruct prosecutors to refrain from using information from the prosecution support system in a manner that violates due process. The Subcommittee also recommends that the Supreme Court declare such information to be inadmissible as evidence of the existence of a criminal background. 35. The Subcommittee notes with concern that the existence of any history of psychiatric treatment gives rise to a presumption of procedural risk and leads to the automatic evaluation of the person in a psychiatric hospital in order to determine his or her legal competence to stand trial. The Subcommittee determined that this practice places such persons in a legal limbo in which they may be left in the psychiatric hospital for months after the evaluation has been completed and the judge notified of its contents. 36. The Subcommittee recommends that the State party call upon all justice officials to limit the use of deprivation of liberty for the purpose of psychiatric evaluation and to ensure that they comply strictly with the legally permissible time frames when determining that deprivation of liberty for such purposes is required. 37. Although constitutional guarantees courts have been introduced as part of the reform of the system of criminal procedures to safeguard defendants’ rights, the State party still lacks a mechanism for judicial oversight of the execution of prison sentences. It is universally acknowledged at all levels of the system, including the Supreme Court, the Prison Service and the Office of the National Public Defender, that a procedural mechanism is needed for overseeing the execution of prison sentences. 38. The Subcommittee recommends that the State party establish a system in which responsibility for monitoring and overseeing the execution of prison sentences is assigned to a specialized judicial body. 39. The Subcommittee notes the absence of integrated, coherent legislation governing the situation of persons deprived of their liberty and the fact that the prison system continues to be based on regulations of a non-statutory nature such as the Prison Regulations and other related rules. This situation has given rise to cases that could constitute torture or ill-treatment. By way of example, the Subcommittee has noted the indiscriminate use of force in prisons, as well as disproportionately harsh disciplinary sanctions that afford little or no opportunity for judicial oversight. The Subcommittee also noted that these practices, in combination with other factors, have led to a lack of sufficient preventive measures. Under the current rules of the prison system, various disciplinary measures can be imposed by prison officers, with no provision being made for an impartial judicial review. 40. The Subcommittee recommends that the State party adopt a comprehensive legal framework for the prison system that is in conformity with international standards, including the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules) and the United Nations Rules for the GE.17-07771 7