E/CN.4/2001/66/Add.1 page 29 (“investigation isolators”) from the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Internal Affairs to that of the Ministry of Justice was also cited as an important contribution to the improvement of conditions of detention. Certainly a combination of a substantial reduction in the prison population, notably in the wake of successive presidential amnesties, and considerable improvements in material conditions and regime effected (with others planned) by the Ministry of Justice have led to a drastic decrease in complaints about prison conditions. The Deputy Minister responsible for the system took genuine pleasure in showing the Special Rapporteur the long-term meeting facilities for private family contacts in centre No. 1. 111. There is evidently, as the Deputy Minister himself pointed out, much more to be done in improving the remand centres, jurisdiction over which was only transferred to the Ministry of Justice in 1999. There are five of these, three of which were visited by the Special Rapporteur in Baku (Bailov, Shuvelan and the detention facility of the Ministry of National Security), the fourth being located in the city of Ganja and the fifth in Naxçivan region. Limited resources dictated a very basic diet for inmates at Bailov and, presumably, other institutions. It was clear that the culture of the personnel who had until recently been employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs was still in need of adjustment. 112. Two prisoners at Gobustan were found in quarantine, having finally been medically examined five days after admission. One appeared to have tuberculosis. 113. However, the main focus of the Special Rapporteur’s mission was on the treatment of those in the hands of law enforcement officials, mainly agents of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The key types of place of deprivation of liberty where such officials enjoy control are, on the one hand, regional police offices and local police units under them (police stations), where people may be held for up to three hours, and temporary detention facilities (IVS), where they may be held for up to three days but under certain circumstances for up to 10 or even 30 days. 114. The Special Rapporteur believes, on the basis of numerous testimonies he received, not least from those whose evident fear led them to request anonymity and who thus had nothing personally to gain from making their allegations, that torture or similar ill-treatment is widespread. Indeed, it is believed by so many to be automatic, that the mere threat or hint of adverse consequences for failure to comply with investigators’ wishes (such as to sign a confession) is assumed to mean torture. For some, the mere fact of detention has the same implication. 115. The Special Rapporteur would have needed substantially more time in the country to be able to corroborate whether this perception is well founded, but it was clear that the detainees and investigating authorities frequently did nothing to dispel the association. The Special Rapporteur points out that the fear of physical torture may itself constitute mental torture. 116. The Special Rapporteur was also concerned at the fact that a person could be transferred from a remand centre back to police custody, albeit on the order of a prosecutor, thus enhancing the risk and, more palpably, the renewed fear of ill-treatment. This could, of course, lead to a perception of coercion even when questioning in the context of a continuing investigation was in fact taking place in a remand centre under Ministry of Justice jurisdiction.