A/HRC/4/40/Add.2 page 16 to reduce a person’s sentence by one day for every two days of work done in prison, and had clearly had a positive effect in facilitating convicts’ rehabilitation and social reintegration. Its withdrawal and other such steps have led to an increase in the number of persons deprived of their liberty, which has risen from 8,500 in 2000 to the current level of 12,693. They have also resulted in a large number of people serving long sentences in detention centres for minor crimes. The physical impact of such measures in the detention centres is worsened by the fact that the country’s 34 existing centres were built to house a maximum of 7,463 detainees. Social Rehabilitation Centre No. 2, in Quito, was built to accommodate 345 people, but housed around 1,000 at the time of the Working Group’s visit. All this increases the tension at detention centres and greatly complicates the work of prison guards and the promotion of good conduct and rehabilitation on the part of the detainees. In 2004, 22 detainees died at the Coastal Prison. 70. The Working Group also noted discrepancies between the provisions and application in practice of the Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure. The provision that establishes that any arrested person must be brought before a judge within 24 hours is rarely observed. Outside Cuenca, the great majority of detainees said that they were not brought before a judge within the time frame set by the Constitution. Some judges interviewed by the Working Group stated that they ordered pretrial detention in the absence of the detainees. Other judges and prosecutors maintained that the physical presence of the detainee was not necessary, and that the presentation of the case file sufficed. 71. In the opinion of the Working Group, the physical presence of the detainee and the detainee’s personal statement are essential requirements established by international law, in particular by article 9, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This provision is based on the right of the detainee to be heard and to express an argument against detention before a judicial decision is taken. 72. Despite provisions of domestic law to the contrary, the Working Group noted that there were pregnant women and many people over the age of 65 in pretrial detention. The Working Group was told that the only alternative measure possible would have been house arrest. In such cases, the detainees must cover the costs of their detention and surveillance, which was beyond the means of the great majority of them. In other cases, even when the court did order house arrest, the National Police refused to execute the order, arguing that they lacked the necessary resources and staff. The Working Group interviewed a pregnant woman held in police cells for over four months, far from her family, with no money or counsel and with no opportunity to contact the outside world. Most police cells are filthy, dark, overcrowded and unventilated. There is no budget to feed the detainees or to provide them with medical attention. The situation of this woman and its negative impact on both her and her unborn child require no more description. The Working Group also noted that, in some police stations, women detainees were overseen by male guards. In others, the women were detained together with the men. 73. By law, if a suspect is reported to be a minor, it must be presumed to be true. In such cases, persons stating that they are minors must be placed under the authority of the Prosecutor for Juvenile Offenders, and in the custody of the appropriate social services. The Working Group, however, met several persons who claimed to be minors and who were held in overflowing police cells and pretrial detention centres, awaiting documentary proof of their age.