8 c. CPT: 18TH GENERAL REPORT level of cooperation received by the CPT 13. Over the last twelve months, the level of cooperation received by the CPT from the competent national authorities in the course of its visits has remained on the whole good. However, isolated examples still occur of delays in access to places of detention, especially of law enforcement agencies. Moreover, the information provided to the Committee’s visiting delegations has on occasion been incomplete (in particular as regards lists of places of detention) and even inaccurate. 14. In a number of countries, evidence was once again found in certain establishments visited of detained persons having been warned not to make any complaints to the CPT’s delegation and/or of them having been subsequently questioned about what they had said to the delegation. One visiting delegation also encountered an attempt (which proved unsuccessful) to prevent it from meeting a detained person, through the provision of misleading information as to that person’s whereabouts. The CPT must reiterate that resort to such methods is totally unacceptable and that any intimidatory or retaliatory action against a person before or after contact with a CPT delegation could result in the Committee exercising its power to make a public statement under Article 10, paragraph 2, of the Convention. 15. During several visits, CPT delegations encountered difficulties in certain establishments in obtaining access to medical records of detained persons, notwithstanding the obligation placed on Parties to the Convention to provide the Committee with “information available to (them) which is necessary for the Committee to carry out its task” (Article 8.2.d). It is self-evident that access to medical records can be of great relevance to the CPT’s task of examining the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty. Certainly, when seeking access to medical records of detained persons, the CPT must have regard to applicable rules of national law and professional ethics, which may have implications as regards the precise manner in which the information sought is provided to the Committee. However, nothing can justify a refusal to grant access to medical information concerning a detained person nor the granting of access under conditions which are tantamount to a refusal. The CPT encourages Parties to the Convention to adopt specific provisions on the subject of access to medical records for the Committee’s delegations, in order to ensure that their obligation under Article 8.2.d of the Convention is always fulfilled in practice. 16. As has been stressed before, a country’s cooperation with the CPT cannot be described as effective in the absence of action to improve the situation in the light of the Committee’s recommendations. Over the years, there has been no shortage of “success stories”. However, it is also the case that the failure of States to implement recommendations repeatedly made by the CPT on certain issues remains a constant refrain of the Committee’s reports. Few countries visited over the last twelve months have escaped this criticism. Monitoring on behalf of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) 17. During the period covered by this General Report, the CPT has received from the ICTY further requests to monitor in certain States the treatment and conditions of detention of persons serving sentences imposed by the Tribunal. Those requests were accepted. At present, the CPT has agreed to monitor the situation of persons convicted by the ICTY and serving their sentences in Albania, Germany, Portugal, Ukraine and the United Kingdom. This specific monitoring activity is regulated by an exchange of letters between the ICTY and the CPT dated 7 and 24 November 2000 (the text of the exchange of letters is reproduced in Appendix 5 of the 11th General Report, CPT/Inf (2001) 16).