A/HRC/31/57/Add.4 one guard, who reportedly also drew his gun. Such acts are utterly detrimental to any monitoring and documentation efforts and must immediately be prevented, investigated and punished. 91. Federal and state governments cooperate with each other and with independent organizations of civil society in various national councils that have been established for specific purposes, such as the National Commission to Prevent and Combat Torture. The Special Rapporteur stresses the urgent need for genuine efforts to ensure nationwide implementation of the safeguards offered by these institutions and procedures. 92. He is concerned about the use of in flagrante delicto arrests. Judicial arrest warrants appear to be the exception when they should be the rule, and the police use an elastic definition of flagrancia that bears little resemblance to the circumstance in which an agent actually witnesses the commission of a crime. The notion of flagrancia is often a disguised illegal search and seizure, or the result of illegal investigative measures. He notes that a more rigorous approach to legitimizing arrests could reduce the prison population and facilitate an improvement in the relationship between police and the community. 93. The Special Rapporteur learned that access to a lawyer from the moment of arrest is generally not available, and that the relative number of defenders is extremely low (in one state, the defender-to-inmate ratio was 11:3,000), preventing them from keeping up with their other crucial functions, including representing at trial those who cannot afford a private lawyer (which in Brazil is well above 90 per cent of all criminal defendants) or filing court actions related to torture or mistreatment. Most prisons offer legal aid services for inmates at trial or during appeals, rather than from the moment of arrest. Many inmates told the delegation that the service was not effective. 94. In most of the country, arrested persons come before a judge, on average, five months after arrest. This violates a clear international human rights obligation and deprives such persons of an essential guarantee not only against torture, but also against arbitrary arrest. 95. A similar, unsustainable, delay applies to access to public prosecutors, whose role in defending legality could otherwise protect detainees from abuse. Remedies such as habeas corpus, because of inordinate delays, are de facto of little use as immediate protection. He expresses concern at the current lack of external oversight of the Public Prosecutor’s Office. A judge who obtains evidence of torture cannot, under Brazilian law, initiate prosecution but can only report the matter to a prosecutor. A crucial role in protecting against ill-treatment is thus of limited value. 96. In this regard, the Special Rapporteur learned during his visit of a creative initiative by some prosecutors, public defenders, public interest lawyers and NGOs, namely that of filing civil actions on behalf of classes of victims. The effectiveness of such an action is called into question, however, by the fact that many courts are reluctant to grant relief and, when they do and State agencies appeal, the appellate process suspends any injunction or order that may have been issued, adding therefore the many layers of appeal of such orders available in Brazilian law. Part of this problem results from the fact that the remedies granted have tended to be orders to build new prisons or repair existing ones, or the closure of some facilities. Given budgetary constraints, States have unsurprisingly tended to block such actions by appealing to higher courts. Custody hearings 97. One of the most important public policy initiatives to tackle problems of arbitrary arrest and torture is a promising pilot project, launched in February 2015, to hold custody hearings in five states, including two visited during the mission. Following the launch of the pilot project, all states have now signed an agreement with the National Council of 15