CAT/OP/BOL/3 sanction, thus exacerbating their condition 31 and limiting their rights and their access to recreational activities. The Subcommittee noted that prison staff lacked the knowledge and skills needed to deal with disability issues and therefore wrongly resorted to isolation as a “protective measure”. 121. The Subcommittee recommends that a campaign be carried out to train prison staff and to promote the rights of persons with disabilities who are deprived of their liberty. 122. The Subcommittee is also concerned that detainees’ files do not contain records of official psychological evaluations, which limits the possibility of providing reasonable accommodation or the specialized health services that may be required by prisoners with disabilities. 123. Like other persons deprived of their liberty, the prisoners with disabilities who were interviewed by the Subcommittee reported shortcomings in terms of access to and enjoyment of their right to health, including in relation to mental health services. 32 124. The Subcommittee recommends the establishment of a national plan of action to ensure adequate and free access to health care for persons with disabilities who are deprived of their liberty.33 125. The Subcommittee recommends that, where appropriate, access should be provided to a psychological/psychiatric examination free of charge. It also recommends the full observance and implementation of the relevant Criminal Code provisions (particularly articles 79 and 80) and procedural rules, viewed in the light of the Nelson Mandela Rules, 34 by all members of the judiciary and the Public Prosecution Service. VII. Reprisals and repercussions of the visit 126. The Subcommittee is concerned with ensuring that, when carrying out its functions under the Optional Protocol, the situation of persons with whom it comes into contact is not prejudiced. 127. During the visit, the Subcommittee shared its grave concerns with the authorities about the situations it had encountered in the Mocoví Men’s Prison. In the Subcommittee’s presence, the inmate representatives entrusted with maintaining discipline in block D threatened the prisoners with physical punishment if they continued to inform the Subcommittee about their situation. The Subcommittee noted with serious concern that there was a general sense of fear; a number of inmates refused to talk with the Subcommittee, citing possible punishment. The occurrence of reprisals as a result of the Subcommittee’s visit was corroborated during the follow-up visit conducted by representatives of the country office of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, who found that at least one person had been hospitalized as a result of the physical punishment to which he had been subjected. 128. In letters dated 8 May, 21 June and 7 July 2017, the Subcommittee requested detailed information about the measures that had been adopted. In each instance the State party responded within the set time frame. However, in the Subcommittee’s opinion, the measures adopted by the State party did not effectively ensure that an investigation would be carried out, nor did they provide guarantees of non-repetition. 129. The Subcommittee recommends that the State party promptly, impartially and effectively investigate alleged reprisals and acts of intimidation so that those responsible are brought to justice and so that suitable redress is provided to victims. 31 32 33 34 GE.18-12272 Reglas Nelson Mandela, regla 45, párr. 2. Ibíd., regla 109, párrs. 2 y 3. Convención sobre los Derechos de las Personas con Discapacidad, art. 25. Reglas Nelson Mandela, regla 109, párr. 1. 21