for release on licence (liberté conditionelle). In light of the concerns highlighted above, it is almost impossible for that list to be exhaustive. 166. As a basic guarantee both for prisoners and for staff in prisons, the SPT recommends that registers should follow a standard format (as appears to be the case in gendarmeries). The following basic information should be included, at a minimum, and updated daily: the precise date and time of arrival of each detainee in the prison; the legal reasons for their deprivation of liberty and the authority which ordered the detention; any medical visit which was ordered or requested; the date and time of any removal from detention (for example in the framework of a court hearing) and return to the place of detention; the date and time of the transfer to another place of detention or release, and the authority for this transfer or release; and information about the identity of the detainee, including the detainee ’ s signature and that of the person responsible for any transfer or release. Prisons should record any incidents occurring in prison and action taken, including use of restraints or other restrictions; there should also be a register of all disciplinary proceedings and sanctions, including isolation or segregation. In addition, prisons should keep an inventory of the personal property of the prisoner that is to be held in safekeeping and ensure a receipt is provided to each detainee upon arrival. 2.Managing prisons 167.The delegation observed that at the three prisons visited, there was a system of free movement during the day within the inner precincts of the prison for most prisoners, the majority of whom were only locked up at night in the very confined sleeping spaces within the accommodation buildings. During the day most prisoners were out in the courtyard going about the business of daily life. The latter is a positive feature of prison life. 168.The delegation noted that a system of self-management was in place inside the prison. Some measure of perimeter security was provided by gendarmes around the outside of the prison and in the inner area immediately within the outer walls, before entry into the inner core of the prison. Within the core of the premises, a prison existed within the prison. In the inner prison, life was ruled by the prisoner hierarchy; it was observed that prison staff appeared hesitant about entering this area. 169.Self-management by prisoners can in principle be positive, bringing with it benefits in terms of fostering a sense of communal and individual responsibility and providing a focus for using time in prison to positive effect. However, in the absence of oversight by the prison authorities, self-management can easily degenerate into the law of the jungle, with the strongest (or richest) wielding power arbitrarily over the weakest. The delegation noted that the Ministry of Justice itself admitted that there is a tendency towards abuse of power among those detainees involved in self-management. 170.At Cotonou Prison, the director explained the system as follows: there was a chief for each building (chef bâtiment), with a controller checking the roll at lock-up time and a committee whose members were the ‘elders’ of the prisoner community, dealing with any problems in each building. Each building also had a chef pot (dealing with toilets) and chef douche (who handed out tickets for the shower). There was a kitty and each prisoner paid a fee into it, so that cases of poverty or prisoners with nobody on the outside could be provided for. The head of all detainees was the ‘chef cour général’, who answered to the guardien chef and the director. The director described it as a good system in which prison management did not get involved. The director also explained that he appointed the detainees to these various roles, based on recommendations of other detainees. The appointed detainees wore distinctive green overalls, and undertook numerous different functions, including helping the registrar and the nurses, and being responsible for hygiene in the cells. 171.At Cotonou and Abomey Prisons, the delegation saw evidence that the system of self-management produced great inequalities and violations of human rights. The problem reached into virtually all areas of prison life affecting who had room to sleep, food and water; who was subjected to additional restrictions of liberty or punished; who worked for whom and who gained the most benefit at the expense of others. Many prisoners reported that they had to pay in order to receive visits from the outside and detainees alleged that those who could not pay the levy on new arrivals (see below) had to do chores (corvées such as cleaning the buildings and toilets) until they could raise the money. The delegation observed a degree of deference or resignation in the face of this inequality, although some prisoners did voice a strong sense of injustice. 172.However, the delegation was forced to the conclusion that prison staff at various levels were involved in the inequitable operation of the processes by which prison life was organised. For example, the delegation observed staff putting cash from visitors in their pockets with no attempt to document the provision of money. Many prisoners interviewed separately reported that the going rate for a place to sleep for new arrivals was 5,000 CFA (CFA 2,000 for a place in the women’s quarters in Abomey Prison). In addition, detainees at Abomey prison said that they had to pay extra to sleep outside or to stay outside until the final lock up or to be allocated to a particular building. It appeared to the delegation that this was part of a wider system, in which the staff as well as the leading members of the prisoner hierarchy gained from the daily transactions of prison life. 173.The director of Cotonou Prison informed the delegation that, in order to stop racketeering, the prison authorities had placed two gift boxes in the inner courtyard used for visitors, to enable them, if they so wished, to make donations to the detainees who facilitated the visits. The gifts were then split among the detainee guards. Despite this endeavour, the delegation was informed by representatives of the Ministry of Justice that corruption remained widespread, and that it received complaints from family members who were forced to pay in order to have access to a detainee during visiting hours. 174.The situation at Akpro-Missérété Prison appeared to be, for the moment, less problematic. The delegation heard that no money was exchanged for basic necessities such as a place to sleep or receiving visits. However, this may have been due to the current low occupancy rate. As more detainees are transferred from other prisons, and as the prison fills up, the same abuse of the system of selfmanagement may be reproduced unless prison authorities take early and decisive action. 175. The SPT recommends that the system of self-management be subject to careful oversight by the prison administration to prevent abuse and/or corruption. The authorities should take immediate steps to ensure that they