173.In relation to the proposed audit of police stations and DNIC premises, the Ministry of Security stated that a multidisciplinary team including representatives of all institutions involved in improving conditions in places of temporary custody for persons awaiting trial should be assembled. The team should work to establish and improve the living space and conditions not only of detainees but also of members of the police force. Food and drinking water 174.No food or drinking water is provided to detainees in police detention centres or DNIC facilities, where they may be held for several months. Persons deprived of their liberty must either rely on relatives to provide food or pay the staff of the facility to buy food for them. Detainees who cannot obtain food by either of these means are entirely dependent on the generosity of other inmates for their sustenance. Police staff reported that detention centres do not have a budget for food. 175. The Subcommittee recommends that the State party should allocate sufficient budget resources to provide food for detainees and ensure, through the necessary oversight mechanisms, that the food purchased is nutritious, effectively distributed to all inmates, and prepared and served in a decent manner. The Subcommittee also recommends that persons deprived of liberty should systematically be given at least two litres of drinking water a day, free of charge. 176.In its response to the Subcommittee’s preliminary observations, the Office of the Attorney-General indicated that it agreed with this recommendation. Health 177.None of the police stations visited by the Subcommittee had a doctor on their staff. Access to a doctor is difficult and at the discretion of police officers. The Subcommittee was told that detainees were taken to satellite emergency clinics in the event of health problems. 178.In Metropolitan Division No. 2 in San Pedro Sula, the Subcommittee spoke to a 73-year-old man who was awaiting clarification of his legal status. He mentioned that he had been in hospital for 24 days after a surgical operation and that since his return he had spent 4 days sitting in a chair, being moved from one office to another, and had not been examined by a doctor. He said that he was in pain and showed the Subcommittee a medical prescription that he had been given in the hospital but had been unable to collect. The detainee was in a state of extreme distress, fearing that he could suffer medical complications because he was not taking the drugs prescribed for him. 179.The Subcommittee is concerned that access to medical care for detainees is decided by police staff with no medical training. The Subcommittee recalls that, in line with international human rights standards, detained persons must receive free medical care and treatment whenever necessary. The Subcommittee recommends that, unless police staff have the medical training necessary to diagnose detainees’ ailments, they should immediately authorize any request from a detainee to see a doctor. VI.Situation of persons deprived of their liberty in prisons A.Role of enforcement judges 180.The Code of Criminal Procedure that entered into force in 2002 introduced the office of enforcement judge to assume responsibility for ensuring that the rules governing the prison system are properly applied, that the constitutional aims of the sentence are respected, and that the judgements handed down by courts are strictly implemented. In accordance with article 382 of the Code, enforcement judges have the following responsibilities in ensuring compliance with custodial sentences: (1)Taking the decisions necessary to enforce the provisions contained in the rulings of sentencing courts; (2)Ruling on convicted prisoners’ applications for parole and granting the necessary revocations; (3)Processing complaints filed by inmates regarding denials of their right to enjoy prison benefits on the part of the authorities of the establishment concerned; (4)Handling complaints from inmates regarding disciplinary sanctions; (5)Ruling on appeals from inmates against decisions relating to their initial classification and to extensions or reductions in the period of treatment, on the basis of studies performed by the prisons’ technical teams; and, (6)Dealing as appropriate with complaints from prison inmates concerning the prison regime and operation and their treatment, to the extent that their fundamental rights or prison rights and benefits are affected. 181.As to pretrial detention, article 191 establishes that enforcement judges shall guarantee detainees’ rights in relation to the place of detention (which may be in a prison but must be quite separate from the places where convicted prisoners are held) and their treatment (pretrial detention must not assume the characteristics of a prison sentence). Should it become evident that pretrial detention has assumed the nature of a sentence, the enforcement judge shall so inform the trial court immediately, and the court shall issue a decision on the matter within 24 hours. Lastly, article 60 establishes that enforcement judges shall be responsible for verifying that pretrial detention, sentence enforcement and stays of proceedings are conducted in accordance with the law and with judicial decisions. 182.The Subcommittee met with enforcement judges from the judicial divisions of Tegucigalpa and San Pedro Sula, who spoke of