   the very existence of such external control is an important deterrent for administration and staff members in places of deprivation and limitation of liberty, who will not want to become subject to criticism from outside and who, in case such external control is not there, may believe that they will never be punished for their actions; the monitoring visits allow independent experts to see with their own eyes how inmates are treated in places of detention, and in what conditions they have to live. Following their observation of each specific situation, monitoring experts can provide realistic and practical recommendations, and also enter into a dialogue with the competent authorities for resolving any problems that were identified; visits to places of deprivation and limitation of freedom by persons not related to these institutions may be an important source of moral support to inmates. Independent monitoring of closed institutions has become the main theme of the new MoU: the Signatory Parties decided to expand the number of institutions to be visited by including reception centres under the MoI and pre-trial detention facility (PDF) under SSEP. The need to include PDFs under SSEP in the list of monitoring targets stems from the fact that monitoring of TDFs can provide only a partial picture with regard to torture and the degree to which torture is used against inmates. Suspects and accused that are detained in TDFs are less likely to admit instances of torture for fear of retaliation from the detaining authorities. Cases when police officers were beating arrested individuals for communicating cases of torture to monitoring groups were described in the 2011 monitoring report10. It is only after they are transferred to PDFs under SSEP that victims of torture feel more or less secure and have enough courage to tell independent monitors about ill treatment. In the past, there has been no single full-fledged monitoring of reception centres under internal affairs bodies. Government institutions that acceded to the MoU committed themselves to facilitate monitoring visits and to respond immediately to allegations of torture, including a commitment to actively carry out monitoring visits of places of detention together with partner civil society organizations; to facilitate, in case there is a need, access to places of deprivation of liberty by partner civil society organizations, defence attorneys and international organizations, including monitoring groups created by them; to carry out effective, thorough, strict and quick internal investigation following allegations of human rights violations in compliance with national legislation and international norms, and to report the results to the administrations of relevant government institutions, partner civil society organizations and international organizations; and to ensure immediate response to reports of human rights violations identifying a responsible representative of public bodies to take part in a joint inspection and to document any reports of violations in closed institutions11. This report contains generalized monitoring findings as regards the respect for the right to freedom from torture in TDFs and reception centres of internal affairs bodies, and PDFs under SSEP in all provinces of the Kyrgyz Republic which was carried out from 1 April to 30 November 2012 within the projects on “Addressing human rights in closed facilities in Kyrgyzstan through nationallyowned human rights mechanisms” and “Increasing police accountability with the introduction of civil society monitoring mechanisms” financed by the OSCE Centre in Bishkek, and the Freedom 10 Monitoring report on “Prevention of torture in temporary detention facilities of internal affairs bodies in the Kyrgyz Republic. Monitoring, response, rehabilitation,” 106 pages, Bishkek, 2011 (available at http://www.osce.org/bishkek/93782). 11 Memorandum of Understanding on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, p. 1. 7