E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.3 page 13 were held in a separate, open-dormitory-type section. In the medical wing of this section there was a room reserved for crafts and activities, which was also used by NGOs to provide counselling. Prison No. 5 was relatively modern and clean and the conditions were good. No allegations of ill-treatment were made. 50. On 24 February, the Special Rapporteur visited Prison No. 7, located in the vicinity of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Fifty-four prisoners, both convicts and pretrial detainees, were held on two floors, with eight cells downstairs and seven above. There were also three interrogation rooms in the prison. The conditions in Prison No. 7 were relatively better than in Prison No. 1; however, there was also a problem of serious overcrowding. 51. The Special Rapporteur did not receive any allegations of ill-treatment of prisoners by prison staff, and in many cases the prisoners expressed appreciation for the treatment from the guards despite the conditions of the facilities. Notwithstanding constraints on resource allocation, the Special Rapporteur is of the view that the conditions in the facilities are exacerbated by structural problems in the criminal justice system. In particular, despite provisions for alternative measures (e.g. articles 151-154 of CPC) the judiciary, severely overloaded with cases as a result of judicial reforms and large-scale dismissals of judges, and widely perceived to be acquiescent to procurators’ requests, resort almost exclusively to pretrial detention of accused persons, irrespective of the gravity of the alleged offence.9 This contributes to severe problems of overcrowding and strain on the already deteriorating infrastructure. Even the language used (i.e. people are “sentenced to pretrial detention in prisons”) indicates that there is no clear distinction between pretrial detention and imprisonment following conviction. The Special Rapporteur considers that this extensive recourse to pretrial detention is contrary to the principle of the presumption of innocence - provided in article 40 of the Constitution and article 10 of CPC - and to the exceptional rule of deprivation of liberty laid down by international law (article 9, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights). IV. ABKHAZIA 52. On 20 February 2005, the Special Rapporteur visited the detention facility of the de facto Ministry of Internal Affairs, where he met with the de facto Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs, Mr. G. Leonid, the Sukhumi City Investigator, Mr. Glazinova, the director of the detention facility, Mr. Vadim, as well as the deputy director. One cell contained pretrial and convicted adult female prisoners who had been detained for between 1 month and 10 years, as well as one prisoner who was sentenced to death. This cell was dark, dank, and poorly lit and ventilated. A red-hot, exposed wire fixed to a concrete brick provided a source of heat. On the day of the visit the cell was at its 12-person capacity; however, according to the detainees it was not uncommon for 16-20 prisoners to be held there. There was adequate bedding and facilities for personal hygiene. The detainees had no access to a radio or telephone, no possibility of sending or receiving letters and, save for five minutes of exercise per day on the roof, they did not have any other “leisure” activities. There were only male guards at the facility. A female nurse was on call, and although a doctor visited regularly, he prescribed only pain-relievers. The detainees complained that they did not have access to specialists, such as a gynaecologist. While there were no serious allegations of ill-treatment, the situation of one female detainee was particularly disturbing. This 50-year-old prisoner had been detained since 1994, sentenced to death in 1996,