One-off visits, without follow-up to ensure the safety of the interviewees after the visit, may be dangerous. In some cases, one visit without a repeat visit may be worse than no visit at all. Well-meaning investigators may fall into the trap of visiting a prison or police station, without knowing exactly what they are doing. They may obtain an incomplete or false picture of reality. They may inadvertently place prisoners that they may never visit again in danger. They may give an alibi to the perpetrators of torture, who may use the fact that outsiders visited their prison and saw nothing. suitable. In some cases, it may be best to insist on evaluation at official medical facilities and not at the prison or jail. In other cases, prisoners may prefer to be examined in the relative safety of their cell, if they feel the medical premises may be under surveillance, for example. The best place will be dictated by many factors, but in all cases, investigators should ensure that prisoners are not forced into accepting a place with which they are not comfortable. 125. The presence of police officers, soldiers, prison officers or other law enforcement officials in the examination room, for whatever reason, should be noted in the physician’s official medical report. Their presence during the examination may be grounds for disregarding a negative medical report. The identity and titles of others who are present in the examination room during the medical evaluations should be indicated in the report. Medicallegal evaluations of detainees should include the use of a standardized medical report form (see annex IV for guidelines that may be used to develop standard medical report forms). 128. Visits should best be left to investigators who can carry them out and follow them up in a professional way and who have certain weathered procedural safeguards for their work. The notion that some evidence is better than no evidence is not valid when working with prisoners who might be put in danger by giving testimony. Visits to detention facilities by well-meaning people representing official and non-governmental institutions can be difficult and, worse, can be counter-productive. In the case in point here, a distinction should be made between a bona fide visit necessary for the inquiry, which is not in question, and a non-essential visit that goes beyond that, which when made by non-specialists could cause more harm than good in a country that practises torture. Independent commissions constituted by jurists and physicians should be given ensured periodic access to visit places of detention and prisons. 126. The original, completed evaluation should be transmitted directly to the person requesting the report, generally the public prosecutor. When a detainee or a lawyer acting on his or her behalf requests a medical report, the report must be provided. Copies of all medical reports should be retained by the examining physician. A national medical association or a commission of inquiry may choose to audit medical reports to ensure that adequate procedural safeguards and documentation standards are adhered to, particularly by doctors employed by the State. Reports should be sent to such an organization, provided the issues of independence and confidentiality have been addressed. Under no circumstances should a copy of the medical report be transferred to law enforcement officials. It is mandatory that a detainee undergo a medical examination at the time of detention and an examination and evaluation upon release.70 Access to a lawyer should be provided at the time of the medical examination. An outside presence during examination may be impossible in most prison situations. In such cases, it should be stipulated that prison doctors working with prisoners should respect medical ethics, and should be capable of carrying out their professional duties independently of any third-party influence. If the forensic medical examination supports allegations of torture, the detainee should not be returned to the place of detention, but rather should appear before the prosecutor or judge to determine the detainee’s legal disposition.71 C. 129. Interviews with people who are still in custody, and possibly even in the hands of the perpetrators of torture will obviously be very different from interviews in the privacy and security of an outside, safe medical facility. The importance of obtaining the person’s trust in such situations cannot be stressed enough. However, it is even more important not, even unwittingly, to betray that trust. All precautions should be taken to ensure that detainees do not place themselves in danger. Detainees who have been tortured should be asked whether the information can be used and in what way. They may be too afraid to allow use of their names, fearing reprisals for example. Investigators, clinicians and interpreters are bound to respect that which has been promised to the detainee. 130. A clear dilemma may arise if, for example, it is evident that a large number of prisoners have been tortured in a given place, but they all refuse to allow investigators to use their stories because of fear. The options are either betraying the prisoners’ trust in the effort to stop torture or respecting trust and going away without saying anything; a useful way has to be found out of this dilemma. When confronted with a number of prisoners with clear signs on their bodies of whippings, beatings, lacerations caused by canings, etc., but who all refuse mention of their cases out of fear of reprisal, it is useful to organize a “health inspection” of the whole ward in full view in the courtyard. In that way, the visiting medical investigator walking through the ranks and directly observing the very visible signs of torture on the backs of the prisoners is able to make a report on what he has seen and will not have to say that prisoners complained about torture. This first step ensures the prisoners’ trust for future follow-up visits. Official visits to detention centres 127. Visits to prisoners are not to be considered lightly. They can in some cases be notoriously difficult to carry out in an objective and professional way, particularly in countries where torture is still being practised. 70 See the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (chap. I, sect. B). 71 “Health care for prisoners: implications of Kalk’s refusal”, The Lancet, vol. 337 (1991), pp. 647-648. 26