A/HRC/13/39/Add.2 121. Module 2 was the only part of the prison where detainees were confined to their cells for most of the time. As a result of inter-prisoner violence, dangerous prisoners were kept there. At the time of the visit, 586 prisoners were detained in this module. The conditions of detention were appalling: the module was dirty and run down, the cells were overcrowded and, in one cell, the Special Rapporteur counted 11 detainees. However, it was sometimes not clear who was detained in which cell, as the prisoners had broken holes in the walls between the cells and could freely move between the cells. In the back part of the module were punishment cells (“el cante”). Prisoners there were denied visits and the one hour a week walk in the open air. 122. In all other modules, the cell doors were open from 8 a.m. to 5:30–6 p.m., and the detainees could walk around within the premises of the respective module, including in the open patios. Those who had the right to work or to participate in sports (e.g. soccer) or school could also go outside Portón 22. At the time of the visit, 295 prisoners were enrolled in primary education and 108 prisoners in secondary education. 123. Modules 3 and 4 were the “general” ones, and prisoners could walk around inside the respective module. The conditions of detention, however, were as bad as in Module 2. 124. Module 5 housed first offenders, in an effort not to mix them with recidivists. Since there was no special block for new arrivals, they were first brought to Module 5 but sent on the same day to their module. During the debriefing of the Special Rapporteur with the prison management, a group of detainees entered the visiting area of Module 5 with knives they had made. As a preventive measure the Director decided to terminate the visits and confine the prisoners to their cells. The visitors felt that they had been collectively punished and became extremely agitated. 125. Module 7, a relatively recent part of the prison, consists of a series of smaller pavilions or barracas with 38 prisoners each. The detainees kept there were low-profile prisoners without a record of violence. The minimum security module was much cleaner, with more space in larger sleeping rooms with beds. 126. In Module 6 (also known as Module 13), which was located close to the directorate of the prison, the Special Rapporteur found one cell with 15 detainees. The cell was identified as calabozo or la reja (the fence). Detainees were held there if, for diverse reasons, they could not be kept together with others in the modules. Some were held there for security reasons, some were being punished and others were awaiting transfer to other penitentiaries. Some of the detainees had been detained in this cell for a number of weeks, although the facilities were meant to be used only for short-term detention. The cell was extremely overcrowded and the conditions were very poor. 127. After the debriefing with the prison director, the Special Rapporteur met the prisoner representatives (delegados) of Modules 2, 6 and 7, as well as the deputy delegado of Module 7. Every module has one delegado who is chosen in an open election. This system has existed since 2003. According to the delegados, the issue of detention in Uruguay was fairly complex. There was clear class segregation and most prisoners came from the lower classes. There was severe and increasing overcrowding and no “rehabilitation” whatsoever. Young persons often came into prison with a drug problem. The Criminal Code was outdated and the sentences too harsh, particularly for young persons. 128. The delegados told the Special Rapporteur that the present director was the best they ever had. They had access and could complain directly to him. Also, the prison officials were not torturers, but the system did not give them adequate tools to handle difficult situations. Although there seemed to be an open attitude towards the delegados, they were afraid of reprisals. Some delegados had even been sent to Libertad. GE.09-17655 47