refused by the officers in charge. In addition, although officials explained that in urgent cases, the Procureur could be contacted over the weekend, they also highlighted that, there was a serious lack of cooperation between the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Health. 131.Lack of provision of adequate healthcare can in itself constitute ill-treatment. By way of illustration, the delegation recommended to the Police Chief of Cotonou Central Police Station that two medical cases be transferred to hospital for assessment. By the end of the following day, the delegation returned to the Police Station and neither had been sent to hospital. At Dantokpa police station, staff reported that, if someone in custody were ill, s/he could be taken to the nearby clinic or to a hospital 5 km away. After a medical examination of one of the detainees, the delegation recommended to the officer that the detainee be transferred to a hospital or clinic. This was refused, on the ground that there were not enough staff to effect the transfer, and that the detainee’s wife would bring medicines. After a repeated request by the delegation, the detainee was taken to the hospital the following day. The SPT recalls that article 18 of the Constitution guarantees access to a doctor, and recommends that all detainees requesting medical treatment, or in obvious need of urgent medical attention, be transferred to a hospital or clinic without delay, in particular when there are no staff members present in police and gendarmerie facilities with the medical qualifications necessary to assess the health needs of persons deprived of liberty. An agreement between the Ministry of the Interior (for the police) and the Ministry of Defence (for the gendarmerie), and the Ministry of Health should be negotiated to provide free emergency care and medicines to detainees, as well as a health check on arrival. Failing this, a budget for medical care for detainees should be established within the relevant ministries. 13.Use of restraints 132.A woman detainee and a male adolescent detainee spoke of being restrained in shackles and in handcuffs while in their cells, including overnight. The SPT considers that the use of restraints on persons deprived of their liberty should be exercised with great caution, and systematically recorded, indicating the officer who took the decision to use the restraints, the specific security reason which led to that decision, and how long the person was restrained. Persons deprived of their liberty by law enforcement officials should not be subject to restraint while in the custody cells. 14.Allegations of ill-treatment and corroborative findings 133.In general, the delegation heard few allegations of physical ill-treatment by police or gendarmes of people deprived of their liberty. However, the following two situations were noted in the preliminary observations presented to the Benin authorities on 26 May 2008: the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty at the police station of Dantokpa (Cotonou) and at the Brigade territoriale de la gendarmerie de Bohicon. 134.There were two separate cases of people having been physically ill-treated at the police station of Dantokpa (Cotonou). By way of example, the first allegation of ill-treatment was recorded by the delegation on 20 May 2008 at 21.00 hours, and again the next morning. The detainee told the delegation that he was brought to the police station after his apprehension during the night of Monday/Tuesday on suspicion of breaking and entering; and that he had refused to confess to any offence. He reported that he was beaten in the early hours of Tuesday morning in the police yard. There were four officers present; he was beaten by one police officer with a “whiplash” and one with a thin stick. He described in detail to the delegation the stick made of hard leather with strips of leather at one end, which he called a “whiplash”. 135.The man had visible injuries on the right wrist, left elbow and forearm on the under side and on the legs, some of which were still bleeding. The medical expert of the delegation examined the man, and opined that the remarkably shaped lesions on many parts of his body appeared to be one or two days old. The lesions were in complete agreement with the history of beatings with a thin long instrument like a stick or a “whip-lash”. 136.The man’s description of the two instruments used for ill-treatment corresponded exactly to two items observed by the delegation on the premises of the police station. The delegation observed that one of the officers on duty was carrying a thin stick, which he described as his personal property. The delegation also found a “whiplash” on the floor under the reception desk located directly outside the cell. Initially, staff at the police station sought to explain the presence of the “whiplash” as a piece of criminal evidence seized for presentation in a criminal case; this unconvincing explanation failed to fit with the account, as given by the senior officer, of procedures for documenting, labelling and storing items taken in evidence by the police – procedures verified by the delegation as being applied to other items of evidence present at the police station. 137. The SPT recommends that any item which is not part of the standard equipment issued to law enforcement officers should not be allowed on police premises without the express authorisation of the senior officer and without careful recording of the details, including reasons. The SPT further recommends that all items taken in evidence should, immediately upon receipt at law enforcement premises, be listed, labelled and stored in a secure manner. 138.The delegation recommended to Commissaire Edouard Babatoundji Konfo that the “whiplash” should be stored securely. The following morning, when the whole delegation returned, it was observed once again in the reception area of the police station. Two members of the delegation witnessed a private security agent, who was standing in the reception area, place the “whiplash” in his large trouser pocket and remove it from the police station. When the delegation reported this to the Commissaire, he made no comment. He explained that the man was working for a private security company, which had in the past provided security to the nearby market. 139.The two police officers on duty on the occasion of the first and subsequent visits by the delegation refused to give their names to the delegation. This refusal was made and not countermanded in the presence of the Commissaire. These two officers were the subject of serious allegations of ill-treatment; while on duty, one was in possession of a weapon, identified by him as his personal property, which corresponded in striking degree to the injuries observed by the delegation. The other was sitting at the desk where