authorities immediately whenever they become aware of any information indicative of ill-treatment.”63 This approach is matched by the Court, which underlines the need for the relevant information to reach the competent body.64 Authorities that lack the necessary competence should therefore refrain from determining complaints, and, in particular, from classifying them as unreliable or groundless. 2.3.4 Prison health services have a special role. Adequate and confidential medical screening is key to securing avenues for the communication of information and evidence relating to ill-treatment. Whenever injuries are recorded by a health-care professional which are consistent with allegations of ill-treatment made by a detained person, that information is to be immediately and systematically brought to the attention of the relevant authority, regardless of the wishes of the person concerned. If a detained person is found to bear injuries which are clearly indicative of ill-treatment, but refuses to reveal their cause or gives a reason unrelated to ill-treatment, his/her statement should be accurately documented and reported to the authority concerned together with a full account of the objective medical findings. Prison services are amongst the first points of contact of persons deprived of their liberty with authorities institutionally independent from law-enforcement or judicial bodies. Admission to prison is also usually the first opportunity for the detainee to undergo adequate medical screening.65 Prison health services are therefore at the crux of the system for combating impunity for ill-treatment. The CPT has created a concrete set of requirements that are repeated throughout its visit reports: “The CPT recommends that the record drawn up by a prison doctor following a medical examination of a newly arrived prisoner contain: (i) a full account of statements made by the person concerned which are relevant to the medical examination (including his description of his state of health and any allegations of 63. 14th General Report on the CPT’s activities, CPT/Inf (2004) 28, para. 27. 64. Ahmet Özkan and Others v. Turkey, Judgment of 6 April 2004, application no. 21689/93, para. 359. 65. In countries where medical screening has been introduced in police detention establishments, the same principles apply to this kind of facilities too. However, due to their smaller scale and lack of independence, they cannot be seen as a substitution for prison health services. See the CPT’s Report on the visit to Lithuania from 2 to 17 December 2001, CPT/ Inf (2003) 30, para. 40. Explanatory note ► Page 33