However, the latter provision may be of greater scope, as it is not limited to torture, but applies to all forms of coercion, presumably including other forms of ill-treatment. The Inter-american Regional System 3 Thus, in Cantoral-Benavides v Peru, the Court, having determined that the applicant had been subjected to physical and psychological torture with the purpose of “wear[ing] down his psychological resistance and forc[ing] him to incriminate himself or to confess to certain illegal activities,” found a violation of Article 8 of the ACHR.487 3.2.5 Duty to train personnel and provide procedural safeguards Article 7 of the IACPPT provides: “The States Parties shall take measures so that, in the training of police officers and other public officials responsible for the custody of persons temporarily or definitively deprived of their freedom, special emphasis shall be put on the prohibition of the use of torture in interrogation, detention, or arrest. The States Parties likewise shall take similar measures to prevent other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.” Where the detention centre or police station houses particularly vulnerable groups, such as children, law enforcement officials may require additional training in the particular needs of such groups.488 The ACHR also contains a number of procedural guarantees. These include the right of anyone who is detained to be informed of the reasons for his or her detention.489 In Tibi v Ecuador, the Court explicitly extended this right to legal representatives, stating that it provides “a mechanism to avoid unlawful or arbitrary conduct from the very act of deprivation of liberty on, and to ensure defense of the detainee. Both the detainee and those representing him or with legal custody over him [therefore] have the right to be informed of the motives of and reasons for the detention and about the rights of the detainee.”490 The right to be brought promptly before a judge is also guaranteed.491 In Petruzzi and Others v Peru,492 the Court held that this guarantee is essential to the protection of the Cantoral-Benavides v Peru (2000), op. cit., §§104, 132–133. See also Tibi v Ecuador (2004), op. cit., §149. 488 See, for example, Bulacio v Argentina (2003), op. cit., §136. 489 Article 7(4) ACHR. 490 Tibi v Ecuador (2004), op. cit., §109. 491 Article 7(5) ACHR. 492 Castillo Petruzzi and Others v Peru, IACHR (Series C) No. 52, judgement of 30 May 1999. 487 108