E/CN.4/2001/66/Add.2 page 42 the authorization of the director.41 The LEP further provides that detainees have the right to contract the services of a medical doctor personally known to the internee or outpatient, by his or her relatives or dependents, in order to provide guidance and monitor treatment.42 125. The great majority of provisional detention facilities and prisons visited by the Special Rapporteur were characterized by a lack of medical resources, both in terms of qualified staff and medication. Medical assistance was said to have been denied to detainees. In the casa de detenção of Carandiru (São Paulo), the Special Rapporteur noted with concern a sign on the fifth floor stating that the prison infirmary had “no medication”, that the doctor would come once a week and that only the names of 10 prisoners would be handed to the doctor for treatment. Medical treatment outside the prisons was reportedly arranged unwillingly and rarely. The alleged unavailability of vehicles or military police personnel to accompany the transport to hospital, lack of planning or appointments and, in some cases, the unwillingness of doctors to treat prisoners often lead to the denial of prompt and appropriate medical treatment. With regard to the situation in many of the police stations visited, which most of the time were holding a significant number of convicted prisoners, the Special Rapporteur received allegations that prisoners requiring urgent medical treatment were not or only belatedly transferred to hospitals despite the fact that none of these police stations had any medical facilities. Furthermore, prisoners were allegedly threatened with beatings if they asked for medical attention. As a result, common illnesses affecting a great number of prisoners, such as skin rashes, colds, tonsillitis and influenza, were allegedly seldom treated, if at all. The Special Rapporteur accordingly referred a number of detainees obviously in urgent need of appropriate medical treatment to the good offices of the officers-in-charge concerned. 3. Internal discipline 126. With respect to internal disciplinary rules, the LEP regulates the imposition of disciplinary sanctions, which may range from verbal warning and suspension of visits, to the isolation of detainees in their own cell or in another adequate location in penitentiaries which possess collective cells.43 Isolation must be imposed by a disciplinary council, not by the director of the establishment alone, and be communicated to the judge responsible for the execution of sentences. Isolation and the suspension or restriction of rights may only be applied in case of grave infractions,44 such as incitement or participation in a movement to subvert order or discipline, attempted escape, possession of a weapon or provocation of a work accident,45 and must not exceed 30 days.46 It must be noted that preventive isolation may be ordered for a maximum period of 10 days in the interest of discipline and verification of the facts which are counted towards the period of disciplinary punishment.47 No disciplinary measure may be imposed without a clear and previous legal provision and without proceedings in which the defence of the suspect has been ensured.48 In its application the perpetrator of the offence, as well as the nature, circumstances and consequences of the offence have to be taken into account.49 Disciplinary measures may not expose the physical and moral integrity of the convict. The use of dark cells and collective punishment are prohibited. 127. The Special Rapporteur found that in many instances detainees had been transferred to punishment in isolation cells for minor infractions, such as being found in possession of a mobile phone or for disrespect to prison guards, or because they were threatened by other prisoners. In