CAT/OP/PER/1 kept in those cells. The shape of these marks was strongly indicative of injuries caused by the use of instruments like canes or sticks, as alleged by those interviewed. The Subcommittee concludes that there is a common pattern in the type of physical punishments meted out to the adolescents in the intensive intervention programme, and that these constitute ill-treatment and even torture. 101. In Santa Margarita, the Subcommittee received information that lesbian relations are punished as indecent and that adolescents caught in a lesbian relationship are sent to punishment cells. In Maranguita, the Subcommittee did not receive any information on adolescents placed in the punishment cells because of their sexual orientation. 102. The Subcommittee recommends: (a) Establishing effective mechanisms for adolescents to submit complaints concerning any aspect of the functioning of the centre and the treatment they receive without fear of reprisals. These complaints should be dealt with by an independent authority with the power to take corrective actions; (b) Establishing clear criteria in the centres’ internal regulations as to what kind of disciplinary measures should be imposed on adolescents who have committed an offence. The measures should avoid any isolation or locking-up of the adolescents and physical ill-treatment should be totally prohibited; (c) Conducting an evaluation of the intensive intervention programme and introducing the necessary changes to move from a punitive model to a model of reintegration of the adolescents; (d) Guaranteeing that no adolescents, female or male, receive disciplinary punishments on grounds of sexual orientation; (e) Drafting and implementing a suicide prevention policy for juvenile detention centres; (f) With regard to the serious allegations concerning the situation in the Maranguita centre, the Subcommittee reiterates the recommendation contained in its preliminary observations on the need to adopt effective measures to stop the widespread use of ill-treatment and torture in this centre. D. Psychiatric institutions 103. During the Subcommittee’s visit to the Víctor Larco Herrera psychiatric hospital, the hospital authorities expressed concern regarding persons found not criminally responsible in the course of criminal proceedings and ordered by a judge to be interned as a security measure, with the internment consisting of admission to and treatment in a specialized hospital or other suitable establishment for therapeutic or custody purposes. The authorities’ main concern was that, when such patients were medically ready to be discharged, the intervention measure should cease. When the hospital’s management reports such situations to the judge who has ordered the measure, the judge often refuses the discharge request, allegedly to prevent the person from committing another offence, so that the patient stays in the hospital indefinitely. It is also common for the security measure to include a set period of internment, sometimes lasting several years, that takes no account of the patient’s clinical condition or of the facility’s physical capacity to accommodate the person. This judicial practice, which treats the security measure as a penalty, persists despite the High Court order of 20 September 2011, which restricts the use of internment where a person’s health does not require it. 104. The Subcommittee recommends that the State party take steps to ensure that judges regularly review the situation of persons subjected to internment measures, so as to safeguard the right to liberty of patients who can be discharged. 105. In Peru there is no specific legislation governing the voluntary or involuntary internment of people with mental illnesses. Patients can be hospitalized involuntarily, usually on the initiative of a family member or doctor. Once they are in hospital, a decision GE.17-13638 15