8. Long‑standing issues in effective prevention of ill-treatment »»»»»»» 8. Long‑standing issues in effective prevention of ill-treatment We intend to remind the authorities of our systemic recommendations and provide expert assistance in their implementation. Independent supervision and effective remedy In facilities for detention of foreigners, in reception centres and in psychiatric hospitals where institutio­nal forensic treatment is provided, there is no supervision by an independent authority that could provide for a quick remedy in case of ill-treatment. A person placed in such an institution can claim enforceable protection of rights in court, which is often a demanding and long path. Such a person could invoke violation of Article 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In prisons and facilities of institutional and protective education, the necessary authority is vested in the public prosecutor’s office. The latter supervises compliance with the legal regulations by means of checks and dealing with instigations, and can issue an instruction to release an individual or to comply with the regulations. The Government Council for Human Rights has prepared a re­ commendation for the Government to extend the supervision by the public prosecutor’s office. See the Defender’s summary report of 2017 To extend the supervision by the public prosecutor’s office, it will be necessary to supplement the Residence of Foreign Nationals Act, the Asylum Act and the Specific Health Services Act. Combating impunity Methodical recording of injuries of persons restricted in freedom and reporting the cases to the competent authorities will substantially contribute to combatting ill-treatment. Viz the CPT standards available at https://rm.coe.int/16806ccc4d The credibility of the prohibition of torture and other forms of ill-treatment is always weakened when persons responsible for such offences are not punished for their acts. 24