100 260. In fact, pretrial detention lessens a suspect’s possibilities of defense, 356 particularly when the person is poor and cannot rely on a defense counsel. It has also been established that keeping pretrial detainees in police stations can undermine the right 357 Similarly, subjecting persons in pretrial detention to conditions of to a defense. imprisonment so poor that they harm their health, safety or wellbeing, means that these detainees will be taking part in criminal proceedings at a disadvantage to the prosecution. In this regard, the WGAD has also held that “[w]here conditions of detention are so inadequate as to seriously weaken the pre-trial detainee and thereby impair equality, a fair trial is no longer ensured, even if procedural fair-trial guarantees 358 are otherwise scrupulously observed.” 359 261. Under the latest international standards, every person deprived of liberty must have adequate opportunities, infrastructure and time to receive visits, communicate and consult with his attorney with total confidentiality and without delay, interception or censure. These interviews may be subject to visual surveillance, but third parties may not be privy to the content. These conditions of confidentiality and noninterference apply to all forms of communication used by the inmates (telephone, mail or message correspondence, as well). This means that officials at prison facilities must not open letters or tap the phone calls made by inmates to their attorneys. Additionally, communications between a person deprived of liberty and his attorney are not admissible as evidence against him unless they are connected to an ongoing crime or a plan to commit a crime in the future. This right of every person deprived of liberty to communicate freely and privately with his attorney, may not be suspended or restricted, except in emergency circumstances that shall be determined by law or regulations issued in accordance with the law, when a judge or other authority so deems it essential in order to maintain security and order. 262. The Commission also notes that other de facto situations may arise that infringe the right of persons in detention to have access to a means of defense, such as the use of disproportionate (or even denigrating) search methods of the 360 attorneys who visit them in prison facilities, or of the inmates who go to meet with 356 UN, Subcommittee for the Prevention of Torture, Report on the visit of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment to the Republic of Paraguay, , CAT/OP/PRY/1, published on June 7, 2010, para. 64. 357 UN, Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Report on the Mission to El Salvador, A/HRC/22/44/Add.2, published on January 11, 2013, para. 129. 358 UN, Working Group on Arbitrary Detentions, Annual Report submitted to the Human Rights Council, E/CN.4/2005/6, published on December 1, 2004, para. 69; UN, Working Group on Arbitrary Detentions, Annual Report submitted to the Human Rights Council, A/HRC/4/40, published on January 9, 2007, para. 66. 359 Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, Rule 93; Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons Subject to Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, Principle 18; and UN, Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders, in Havana, Cuba, August 27, 1990, UN Doc. A/CONF.144/28/Rev.1 p. 118 (1990), Principle 8. 360 Thus, for example, on the visit to El Salvador of the WGAD, it “received numerous reports that, both in detention centers and prisons facilities, lawyers and public defenders are also subjected to rigorous Continues…