A/HRC/13/39/Add.4 Black Beach Prison, namely Florencio Ela Bibang, Antimo Edu Nchama, and Felipe Esono Ntutumu7, who the Special Rapporteur regrettably was not able to meet because he was unable to gain access to the part of the prison where they were reportedly held. Also a number of other cases of prolonged secret detention, most often of persons accused of political crimes, have been brought to his attention. 54. The Special Rapporteur interviewed one individual who had been arrested in Cameroon, where he used to live as a refugee some months prior to the visit. He was then handed over to soldiers of the Equatoguinean Presidential Guard who took him to Malabo. He was detained incommunicado in solitary confinement, handcuffed and in leg-irons. Both were removed shortly before the Special Rapporteur arrived. III. An environment conducive to torture A. Non-functioning of the Administration of Justice 55. The context that allows torture to continue unabatedly is characterized by the nonfunctioning of the administration of justice and, therefore, the absence of the rule of law. In this context, the Special Rapporteur wishes to recall the findings of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention on their visit in November 2007 (A/HRC/7/4/Add.3), which discussed serious concerns in the following areas: the compatibility of the legal framework with international standards; the lack of independence of the judiciary; the excessive power of the police and the military, and the lack of a registration system. The Special Rapporteur also found that the judiciary did not fulfil its role as an element of protection against torture. Rather it appeared to be effectively controlled by the law-enforcement bodies. According to numerous testimonies, when any victim or his/her lawyer raised torture allegations in court, the judge did not pay any attention. Moreover, only very few of the detainees interviewed by the Special Rapporteur had lawyers. If they did, they generally did not trust them. Lawenforcement was militarized, in practice the various bodies were indistinguishable from each other and lacked any accountability mechanisms. Moreover, “evidence” obtained under torture was commonly used as the basis for convictions, which meant that there was considerable pressure on the police to extract confessions. The police and other lawenforcement bodies clearly also lacked training. According to many detainees, the prison authorities did not take any action when detainees with visible traces of torture arrived. The Prosecutor did not appear to play a major role at all. B. Impunity 56. Notwithstanding article 14 of Law 6/2006, which contains a victim and witness protection clause and requires the State to ensure that every alleged victim of torture may present a complaint to a judge and that the case be examined promptly and impartially by the competent authorities, in practice no complaints channels exist and detainees cannot file any complaints with State bodies that would entail investigations and prosecutions. Also, many interlocutors of the Special Rapporteur indicated that they were afraid of reprisals, in particular by the police. 57. Whereas the Commission on Human Rights of Equatorial Guinea (CHR), created by Decree Law no. 7/1990 of 27 September 19908, was mandated to receive complaints and 7 8 16 See also report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention A/HRC/7/4/Add.3. The Commission has not sought accreditation with the International Coordinating Committee of