A/HRC/40/59/Add.3 reportedly introduced systems of “administrative arrest” (Donetsk) and “preventive arrest” (Luhansk), which can be applied for up to 30 days and then extended to 60 days without the detainee having any contact with legal counsel or the outside world. It must be stressed that any such regime of incommunicado detention is absolutely incompatible with the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment, and provides no safeguards whatsoever against arbitrary detention and disappearance. 80. The Special Rapporteur recalls that incommunicado detention is known to facilitate the perpetration of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and can in itself constitute a form of such abuse. All persons deprived of their liberty must be treated with respect for their inherent human dignity at all times, which includes ensuring the requisite contact with the outside world. The Special Rapporteur therefore urges the de facto authorities in Luhansk and Donetsk to keep a detailed and accessible register of all persons deprived of their liberty, regardless of the detaining authority, and to systematically inform the families of detainees about the fact and place of their detention. 81. The Special Rapporteur received several reports that detainees who have completed their sentence in territories controlled by the armed groups could not be released because, as a result of the conflict, their personal files were not in the possession of the de facto authorities and the required judicial authorizations for their release could not be obtained. The Special Rapporteur also received several inquiries from detainees as to the possibility of transfers to the government-controlled territory, where they have their families. The Special Rapporteur therefore encourages both the Ukrainian authorities and the de facto authorities in Donetsk and Luhansk, to the maximum extent possible to them, to facilitate any pending judicial proceedings or other measures that may be required in order to allow the detainees concerned to serve their sentences in government-held territory. 82. In accordance with common article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, the Special Rapporteur strongly recommends that, without prejudice to their respective legal status, all parties to the conflict in Ukraine endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, the other provisions of the Geneva Conventions, including the obligation to allow visits by the ICRC to all persons deprived of their liberty. B. Conditions of detention 83. Prior to the conflict, the provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk had one of the highest concentrations of penitentiary facilities in Ukraine. According to various estimates, at the outbreak of the conflict there were over 10,000 pre-conflict prisoners in the territories controlled by armed groups. The overall deterioration of the humanitarian situation in 2014 negatively – and at times severely – affected the detention conditions in the penal colonies located in the territory controlled by armed groups. 84. Given that the Special Rapporteur was unable to conduct his visit to places of detention controlled by the de facto authorities in Donetsk and Luhansk in accordance with the terms of reference of his mandate, he was unable to assess the treatment and conditions of detention in these institutions with sufficient reliability and comprehensiveness. Nevertheless, the Special Rapporteur was able to draw a number of general conclusions from his observations made during these visits, including on factors such as visible and audible interactions between prison staff and inmates, the strict discipline imposed on all inmates during the entire visit, the behaviour and apparent nutritional state of the inmates and the overall conditions in terms of occupancy compared with the available space, access to fresh air and the quantity, quality and appearance of infrastructure, premises and equipment throughout the institutions he visited. 1. Luhansk 85. The Special Rapporteur was given restricted access to Krasnyi Luch penal colony No. 19 and Petrovske penal colony No. 24, both facilities having been preselected by the de facto authorities in Luhansk. The Special Rapporteur’s request to visit the Luhansk remand prison and the Slovyanoserbsk penal colony was not granted. 86. The conditions under which the Special Rapporteur had to make his visits were not in accordance with the terms of reference of his mandate and did not allow for a reliable and 13