102 violations of state and local laws, inasmuch as the only public defender working on the 364 premises is a federal public defender. 265. In this context, it is unacceptable from any standpoint that persons in pretrial detention are compelled to be absent from their hearings or other procedural events for reasons such as the State’s failure to provide a means of transportation or custodial officers. It is also unacceptable for the prosecutors to be absent or for any other reason attributable to the State to interfere with the detainee’s presence at the hearing. The reason for this is that the decision to hold a person in custody under the principle of ensuring his appearance for trial resides with the State and, therefore, the fact that it is unable to provide transportation or custodial measures for the detainees to be able go to the courthouse for the respective hearings on the date and at the time scheduled, amounts to a situation of fundamental injustice. Similarly, it is totally unacceptable to collect “bribes” from inmates to be transported to the courthouses. This type of practice should be properly investigated and punished when it takes place. 266. In addition to the typical procedural purposes of a defense, legal assistance may be required for other purposes, such as ensuring judicial protection for the conditions of detention or for other personal or family-related reasons of the inmate that are not connected to confinement. For this purpose, inmates in general should have the means to gain effective access to their legal representation. 267. Accordingly, in keeping with the standards set by the Council of Europe, the Commission considers that no disciplinary punishment imposed on a remand prisoner shall have the effect of extending the length of the remand in custody 365 or interfering with the preparation of his or her defense. 268. In addition to the foregoing considerations, the Commission underscores that under no circumstances should the practice of using pretrial detention be tolerated as a mechanism to force confessions or the naming of other suspects, or to prod the detainee to self-incriminate and opt for a summary proceeding or plea bargain 366 as a way to obtain prompt release. Just as with the non-exceptional use of pretrial 364 IACHR, Thematic Hearing: Situation of Persons Deprived of Liberty at the Prison Complex of the Marias Islands, Mexico, 149th regular period of sessions, requested by: ASILEGAL, Documenta, Renace, Institute of Human Rights Ignacio Ellacuría, S.J., Ibero-American University of Puebla and others and held on November 1, 2013. See also CNDH, Recommendation No. 90/2011, Regarding the case of the inmates of the “Islas Marias” Prison Complex, Mexico, D.F., December 16, 2001, item (g). 365 Council of Europe/Committee of Ministers, Recommendation Rec(2006)13 on the use of remand in custody, the conditions in which it takes place and the provision of safeguards against abuse, approved on September 27, 2006, para. 41. 366 In this regard, in addition to the pronouncement on Colombia in paragraph 63 of this report and according to a study conducted in four jurisdictions of the Republic of Argentina (the federal jurisdiction and the provinces of Santa Fe, Cordoba and Chubut), the Commission found a common denominator to be that “when persons deprived of liberty in those jurisdictions are asked whether pretrial detention was used as a bargaining chip to sign a plea bargain agreement for an expedited proceeding, everyone responded that it was [used in this way], since it would give them certainty about their legal situation or because they felt compelled [to do so] because of insecurity inside prisons.” Said study also concluded: “pretrial detention directly affects Continues…