CAT/OP/ESP/1 34. The Subcommittee is concerned by the fact that there is no record of the number of officials investigated for torture or ill-treatment, that data on persons who file complaints are not disaggregated by factors such as sex, age, nationality and prison regime, and that information is not available on the steps taken to prevent reprisals after a complaint has been lodged. 35. The Subcommittee calls on the State party to take the necessary steps to ensure that complaints of torture or ill-treatment are investigated in an efficient, thorough and transparent manner and that those responsible for such acts are prosecuted and punished in a manner that is commensurate with the severity of the offences concerned. Echoing the recommendation of the Committee against Torture, the Subcommittee urges the State party to combat impunity by having an independent mechanism carry out prompt, impartial, thorough and transparent investigations into all allegations of torture or ill-treatment by law enforcement officials. 36. The Subcommittee urges the State party to ensure, in practice, that all persons deprived of their liberty have the opportunity to submit requests and complaints to the warden or the designated prison officer, the sentence administration judge, the sentence administration prosecutor, the Ombudsman and the national preventive mechanism. The State party should also ensure that persons deprived of their liberty are able to speak freely and in full confidentiality and that they are not punished or otherwise prejudiced for having submitted a complaint or provided information. 37. In addition, the Subcommittee recommends that the State party gather statistical data, disaggregated by, inter alia, sex, nationality and prison regime, on complaints concerning torture, ill-treatment and unlawful use of force on the part of the police and on the related investigations, prosecutions, trials (specifying the offence) and criminal or disciplinary sanctions. It also recommends that the State party take the necessary steps to ensure, in practice, that persons who have reported cases of torture or ill-treatment are protected against reprisals. (a) Lack of safeguards 38. The Subcommittee observed that, in some cases, persons deprived of their liberty were being held in conditions that prevented them from informing anyone of their detention, including a lawyer (lack of public defence services), and were not informed of their rights or status in a language they understand. 39. The Subcommittee urges the State party to adopt measures to ensure that all persons deprived of their liberty are effectively afforded all safeguards from the time they are taken into custody, in accordance with international rules and standards. 40. The Subcommittee observed that, in many cases, persons deprived of their liberty, in particular those who stand accused or have been convicted of acts of terrorism, are systematically transferred to detention centres far from their families. 41. The Subcommittee recommends that the State party take into account rule 59 of the Nelson Mandela Rules when assigning a person to a prison. (b) Lack of public defence services 42. The Subcommittee is concerned about the unavailability of the public defence services that should be provided to persons deprived of their liberty. The question as to whether persons deprived of their liberty received legal assistance from public defenders consistently elicited a negative reply. The failure to make the corresponding visits to these centres indicates that there is a failure to communicate with persons deprived of their liberty prior to their appearance before the judge, at the time of their arrest and during the criminal investigation of the alleged offence. 43. The above illustrates the need to consider amending Act No. 1/1996 on free legal assistance with a view to strengthening public defence services, making their provision mandatory and increasing government funding for those services. 8 GE.19-17184