CPT: 16TH GENERAL REPORT 11. The primary focus of the November 2005 ad hoc visit to the United Kingdom was to examine the treatment and conditions of detention of certain persons who had recently been detained under the 1971 Immigration Act, with a view to being deported. The delegation had met a number of these persons during previous visits, either when they were detained under Part IV of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 or when they were subject to control orders as provided for in the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. Particular attention was given to the mental health of the individuals concerned. During the visit, the delegation held an exchange of views with officials from the Home Office and Foreign and Commonwealth Office on the issue of “diplomatic assurances” in the context of deportation procedures and related Memoranda of Understanding with other countries. 12. The level of co-operation shown towards CPT visiting delegations by the competent national authorities continues on the whole to be very good, and it was exemplary during the Committee’s first visit to Monaco. Meetings with Ministers and other senior officials at the beginning and end of visits almost invariably take place in a constructive atmosphere. Further, in the great majority of cases at local level, CPT delegations enjoy rapid access to places visited and are provided with the information they need. 13. Nevertheless, as in previous years, there were isolated examples of attempts to disguise the true situation in places visited, such as efforts to conceal the presence of certain inmates. Further, lists of places of deprivation of liberty provided to CPT delegations by the competent authorities were sometimes incomplete, in particular as regards law enforcement establishments. 14. It must also be noted that on several occasions, CPT delegations gained the distinct impression that inmates at places visited had been warned against making any complaints. Any such behaviour on the part of State officials would be entirely contrary to the principle of co-operation and hence totally unacceptable. 9 15. Reference has already been made to an incident in which a CPT visiting delegation was initially refused access to a part of the territory of the State visited. In another country, the visiting delegation was initially denied access to a specific section of a psychiatric establishment. In both cases, it was subsequently affirmed that this state of affairs was the result of the officials concerned being unaware of the CPT’s mandate and powers. This only serves to highlight the need for continued efforts to ensure that all relevant authorities receive detailed information on the Committee’s task and their obligations vis-à-vis visiting delegations. In another case, a CPT delegation was initially refused access to a social care home, the competent local authorities contending that all the residents had been admitted on a voluntary basis and hence the establishment did not fall within the Committee’s mandate. However, when the establishment was finally visited, it was discovered that a significant number of the residents could certainly be considered as being deprived of their liberty. To avoid situations of this kind arising, it is essential for CPT visiting delegations to have the possibility to verify that “voluntary” inmates in a given establishment are indeed there at their own wish. 16. The requirement to co-operate is not limited to an actual visit but is a continuing obligation extending throughout the on-going dialogue between the CPT and State Parties. In particular, the principle of cooperation set out in the Convention requires that effective measures be taken to improve the situation of persons deprived of their liberty, in the light of the CPT’s findings. The Committee has been obliged to reiterate this point to a number of States during the period covered by this General Report. 17. To sum up, despite the clear prevalence of good co-operation between Parties to the Convention and the CPT, certain problems of co-operation arise from time to time and can on occasion be of such gravity as to raise issues under Article 10, paragraph 2, of the Convention. To date the CPT has invoked that provision very sparingly and intends to continue to act in this way. However, if faced with solid evidence of intimidatory or retaliatory action against a person before or after contact with a CPT delegation, or with a persistent failure to implement recommendations on key issues, the Committee will have little choice but to consider having recourse to its power to issue a public statement.