Effective prosecutor’s supervision, parliamentary and public control is one of the guarantees of ensuring respect for rights and liberties of persons held in TDFs. In accordance with the Law on the Procedure of the Detention, the supervision of law enforcement in places of detention of suspected and accused persons shall rest with the KR General Prosecutor and his subordinate prosecutors as per the Law of the Kyrgyz Republic on “Prosecutor’s Office of the Kyrgyz Republic”. Administration of places of detention of suspected and accused persons shall execute resolutions, instructions, and recommendations of a prosecutor on the procedure of detention established by this law.243 The prosecutor, in accordance with the departmental order, shall visit IAB TDFs under his supervision every ten days. In view of the monitoring results described in detail in this report, it can be argued that prosecutor’s supervision of respect for TDF prisoners’ rights and liberties is not effective. In most cases, prosecutors only formally visit TDFs, talk to a guard-on-duty, and make notes in a special log verifying the fact of the visit. 98 detainees answered that the prosecutor visits the TDF. At the same time, 95 detainees said they had never seen the prosecutor. Even if we assume that 49 out of the surveyed prisoners had been detained for less than 10 days at the time of the interviews and could have missed the ten-day period when the prosecutor had his visit, 44 detainees (22.8%) claim that they did not have any opportunity to approach the prosecutor. Example: defendant held in the Panfilov District IAB TDF told:“Maybe the prosecutor visits the institutions, but he is not introduced to us. We are just informed in advance that there will be an inspection so that we could arrange everything in order”.244 Example: an accused person held in the Tala Oblast IAD TDF explained during the interview conducted on November 22, 2011, that “he had never seen the prosecutor for the three months of his detention.”245 Other respondents at that same TDF gave similar explanations.246 Example: an accused person held in the Kara-Suu District IAB TDF explained during the conversation on November 19, 2011, that he had been here since August 25, 2011, and since then “the prosecutor has not visited the place”. 247 At the same time, the observers have documented detainees’ explanations verifying that prosecutors visited the institutions more often than is provided for by departmental standards for visiting IAB TDFs. Example: An accused person from the At-Bashy district IAB TDF has explained that the prosecutor visited TDF every day. 248 Example: A woman defendant from the Nooken district IAB TDF has explained that the prosecutor had visited the facility once a week. 249 However, the fact remains that even in cases when prosecutors visited facilities every ten days, they did not reveal any serious violations with respect to any issues described in this report. Nor did they submit prosecutor’s supervision acts. Since violations had taken place and were later revealed in the course of the monitoring by the observers who visited those same TDFs, it appears that the prosecutor’s supervision is not effective enough. The monitoring team still hopes the situation will change to the better in view of new requirements of the KR General Prosecutor specified in Instruction No. 40 as of April 12, 2011, on “Strengthening Prosecutor’s Supervision for Ensuring a Constitutional Guarantee of Prohibition Against Torture and Other Inhumane, Cruel or Degrading Treatment and Punishment”. 243 244 245 247 248 249 246 Law on the procedure of detention, Art. 47. Questionnaire for a detained person No. 7/3/з/1.1. Questionnaire for a detained person No. 10/13-15/з/4.5. Questionnaire for a detained person No. 10/13-15/з/3.3; 10/13-15/з/3.4; 10/13-15/з/3.5; 10/13-15/з/4.4. Monitoring Report No. 30/23-25,28/З/1.3. Monitoring Report No. 14/1/З/1.1. Monitoring Report No. 38/29-30/З/1.0. 78