E/CN.4/2001/66/Add.2 page 28 previous week, no doctor had visited the prison. The only reason he could offer was that there was a lack of commitment on the part of a number of professionals working with prisoners’ issues. The Director said that prisoners were separated according to the crimes they had been sentenced for. 77. The Special Rapporteur sought further information about allegations that were contained in a recent report by the community council after a visit on 11 July during which two detainees complained of having been beaten and who bore marks consistent with their allegations. With respect to complaints of ill-treatment from detainees, the Director first explained that alleged victims are immediately referred to a Forensic Medical Institute for a medical certificate. With respect to this particular case, the Director said that a note had been sent to the commander of the battalion to which the two allegedly responsible officers belonged. Hearings were said to have been scheduled to decide whether the corregedor of the Secretariat of Justice would lead the internal investigation, as the Director himself had suggested. Because of the understaffing problem, the two suspected officers were still on duty in the very same block where the two alleged victims were currently held. The Director nevertheless indicated that they were used only as auxiliary staff and no longer had any direct contacts with the prisoners. 78. The Special Rapporteur first visited the punishment cells. Fifteen detainees were held in a large cell containing only a mattress and a few blankets. All, except one, had been punished for 20-30 days. The Special Rapporteur noted that the punishment book indicated only 13 prisoners in this cell. While one had been brought in only a few minutes before the Special Rapporteur’s visit, another had allegedly been there for two days. The Director explained that the decision to punish this detainee, which had been taken by the cell block’s head of the security, had not yet been confirmed by himself. Nine other prisoners were held in two special isolation punishment cells, which contained beds, mattresses, blankets and other personal items such as fans. They said that their wives were allowed to visit them but complained about the lack of privacy on such occasions. They were segregated reportedly because they were considered to be highly dangerous. According to the Director, any decision to punish a prisoner must be preceded by an investigation during which the prisoner is nevertheless not given an opportunity to defend himself. For the defence, only the prisoner in charge of the surveillance of the block is heard. Most, if not all, the detainees the Special Rapporteur met in the three punishment cells had thus never been interrogated and did not know the stage of the procedure according to which they had been punished. They also did not know how many days they had been punished for. One was said to have spent more than three months in a punishment cell. Most of them complained of having been beaten before being brought to the punishment cell, in particular by officers of the military police (see annex). Some said that they had signed a statement admitting that they had violated internal prison rules, out of fear of being beaten or being sent to the block where members of (criminal) enemy gangs were held. Threats by guards to expose a prisoner to inmate violence by placing him in a cell with his so-called enemies were reportedly common in this prison. Some of the prisoners believed that such violence had resulted in deaths in the past. According to information later received by the Special Rapporteur from reliable NGOs, some of these prisoners were subjected to reprisals, including beatings, at the time the Special Rapporteur was visiting other wings of the establishment (see annex). This incident is the subject of direct follow-up with the Government.