CAT/OP/NZL/1 The Subcommittee also notes that, in line with article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, no person should be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. The mandatory arrest and detention of individuals based solely on the manner of their arrival in the State party is arbitrary and does not accord with international standards on the treatment of persons in need of international protection. 23. The Subcommittee recommends that the State party: (a) Consider withdrawing its reservations to article 14 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and article 37 (c) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child; (b) Put in place guidelines that restrict the wide discretion of the Attorney General with regard to prosecutorial decisions for crimes against torture, in order to ensure that decisions whether or not to prosecute an offence of torture are based solely on the facts of the case; (c) Reconsider the Bail Amendment bill in the light of the Subcommittee’s concerns set out in paragraph 21 above; (d) Reconsider the Immigration Amendment bill in the light of the Subcommittee’s concerns set out in paragraph 22 above. B. Institutional framework Detainee classification 24. Following its numerous visits to places of detention and interviews with staff and persons deprived of their liberty, the Subcommittee has concluded that the complexity of the existing system of classification undermines the rights of detainees and weakens the protection against torture and ill-treatment. The Subcommittee notes with approval that in all prisons it visited there was strict separation between pretrial and sentenced detainees. However, the Subcommittee observed that the complex categorization system implied managing not two but at least five different categories of inmates, namely, remand accused, remand convicted, sentenced, voluntary segregated and youth. The situation is further compounded by the parallel system of security classification. The practical result is that detainees may be subjected to far greater restrictions in practice than their categorization would suggest, as staff struggle to find means of keeping them separate during the normal day-to-day running of detention facilities (including court cells, police stations and transport vehicles). Similarly, the Subcommittee noted that differences in classification do not necessarily mean there is a difference in regime, since prisoners belonging to different categories, although physically separated, are often subject to the same rules in terms of hours of lock-down, food, exercise, etc. In the light of the above, the Subcommittee is of the view that prolonged exposure to inappropriate regime conditions, such as those which it observed for remand prisoners and youth, can constitute ill-treatment. Remand prisoners 25. The Subcommittee noted with great concern that in all the prisons it visited, the regime applicable to pretrial detainees was inappropriate, given their unconvicted status and the often lengthy periods for which they were detained. For instance, in Rimutaka prison, the Subcommittee heard that remand prisoners were routinely locked-down for up to 19 hours per day while awaiting trial, in addition to the lack of appropriate facilities for exercise and delays in access to medical assistance. The Subcommittee saw for itself that the periods of “out of cell time” were, in practice, significantly shorter than was claimed. 7