Situation of deprivation of liberty itating an eventual court investigation on providing the forensic medical practitioner with further information to evaluate the ethology of the injury and the compatibility of the production mechanisms, since the check-up may be performed by the forensic medical practitioner long after the injury occurred. Accordingly, a recommendation has been made to the Department of Justice of the Government of Catalonia for the necessary instructions to be given to make photographs of the injuries that may be observed in inmates and include them in the relevant injury reports, always after obtaining consent for the purpose from the injured person, according to the criterion of this Institution stated in paragraph 115 of Annual Report 2012. The recommendation was rejected by said Authority, as it was also by the SGIP at an earlier date, as was placed on record in paragraph 144 of Annual Report 2011. 130. Occasionally, the injury reports are not sent systematically to the responsible court authority and no copy is delivered to the inmates. In the cases of CPs Puerto III (Cádiz) and Villabona (Asturias), a reminder has been made of the legal duty, established in article 262 of the Criminal Procedure Law, for the injury report issued after the application of coercive measures, fights between inmates, self-injuries or injuries that the inmate may have at his admission into the centre to be notified to the duty court as soon as possible, the Authority not having competence to decide whether or not the injury reports must be sent to the court, pursuant to paragraph 114 of Annual Report 2012. Said reminder was accepted by the SGIP. Reminder of the legal duty for injury reports to be always notified to the duty court 131. In the confidential interviews held with inmates, they occasionally state that they were victims or witnesses of ill-treatment or incorrect actions of personnel. If they so wish, the information is conveyed to the Security and Justice Department of the Ombudsman’s Office for it to take action with the Authority, to verify the facts. However, the inmates often fail to provide the necessary data for the purpose or do not wish the facts to be investigated. In such cases, they are informed of the possibility of reporting the facts to the Penitentiary Surveillance Judge and of bringing a complaint before the Ombudsman’s Office at a later date, even providing them with a form for the purpose. Inmates victims or witnesses of ill treatment or incorrect actions Notwithstanding the eventual complaints that may be brought by the inmates, one of the main objectives of the visits of the Ombudsman as NPM is to verify whether sufficient mechanisms exist to detect situations that may be considered to be ill-treatment or torture. In this respect, it is essential for inmates to have an efficient system to bring complaints and claims. Inmates may use various mechanisms for defence and complaint: firstly, they may bring them through the many professionals in contact with the inmates and the authorities of the CP, or by filing a claim with the Penitentiary Surveillance Judge, for criminal justice through a complaint to the duty court and the Ombudsman or the autonomous commissioners, in those cases in which they have Sufficient mechanisms to detect situations that may be considered ill-treatment or torture 109