CAT/OP/BOL/3 increase the Service’s budget with a view to recruiting more public defenders, with priority being given to rural areas. 51. The Subcommittee notes with concern that there is no system for monitoring conditions of detention and, in particular, that neither the Public Prosecution Service nor the Public Defender Service or judicial authorities are responsible for monitoring conditions of detention. The Subcommittee notes with concern that the Public Defender Service does not keep records on cases of torture and ill-treatment and that there are no rules or guidelines on the maintenance of such records. 52. The Subcommittee recommends that the State party ensure that public defenders fulfil their legal obligation to keep records of the instances of torture or other inhuman treatment reported or mentioned in confidence to them by their clients, as stipulated in article 41 (7) of Act No. 463. In particular, it calls on the State party to train public defenders how to identify and record any instances of torture or illtreatment and to make it widely known to persons deprived of their liberty that they may submit reports of torture to public defenders. 53. The Subcommittee noted the absence of defence lawyers for children and adolescents in conflict with the law, who generally depend on the work of children’s advocates, and observes that such advocates do not consistently apply the principle of the best interests of the child in judicial proceedings. In one case brought to the attention of the Subcommittee, the defence attorney asked the judge to order the detention of an adolescent during an arraignment. In general, rather than employing other defence strategies that could lead to different results, the aim of the defence attorneys serving adolescents appears to be to ensure the imposition of the lightest penalty possible or to have the judge decide to conduct summary proceedings. 54. The Subcommittee recommends that the State party set up the specialized technical defence service for children and adolescents provided for in Act No. 463. D. Safeguards 55. The Subcommittee notes with great concern the State party’s failure to implement the recommendations it made in its 2010 report regarding the adoption of effective measures to ensure access to a lawyer and a doctor, the right to notify a trusted person, the right to be informed of one’s rights at the time of arrest and the establishment of reporting and complaints systems. It became clear during the visits carried out in 2017 that the prisoners’ rights mentioned above, which are safeguards against torture and ill-treatment, are still being violated. 56. The Subcommittee urges the State party to implement its previous recommendations. 57. In particular, the Subcommittee noted that no clear progress had been made towards fulfilling the State’s obligation to maintain an adequate record-keeping system. 58. Under Act No. 2298, prison directors are responsible for keeping records on prisoners up to date.21 Each of the prisons visited had different ways of keeping records, with some using Excel spreadsheets and some using manual record-keeping systems. 59. The Subcommittee reviewed numerous files and noted with concern the general lack of information on the judges and prosecutors assigned to particular cases and the exact dates of arrest.22 The information on detainees, which in many cases did not include an identity card number or fingerprints, was incomplete. Furthermore, prison staff explained that they themselves, without relying on any specialized expertise, checked sets of fingerprints against one another when detainees were being released. In many cases, the Subcommittee was unable to find any records on such matters as the amount of time remaining to be served, medical reports, psychological reports or records of transfers or 21 22 GE.18-12272 Ley de Ejecución de Penas, art. 59. Se asienta el ingreso a la comisaría o servicio penitenciario pero no la fecha efectiva de detención. 11