3.Information on rights as a safeguard against ill-treatment 69.From the discussions held, the delegation noted that the language of rights is not part of the normal discourse concerning the law enforcement process. The delegation formed the view from discussions with law enforcement staff and person deprived of their liberty, that there is no systematic practice of informing person deprived of their liberty about their rights. This was confirmed by staff, for example at Dantokpa police station, who indicated that it was not part of their practice to inform people in custody about their rights. 70.The provision of information on rights is an important safeguard against ill-treatment. In order for people deprived of liberty to exercise their rights effectively, they must first be informed of and understand those rights. 71. The SPT recommends that the legislation be amended to spell out the rights of persons deprived of liberty, as well as the right of such persons to be notified of their rights as from the moment of deprivation of liberty. 72. The SPT further recommends that law enforcement staff be trained to inform persons deprived of their liberty of their rights, including orally in the languages usually spoken by such persons, and to assist in the exercise of all such rights as from the very outset of deprivation of liberty. 4.Risk entailed in reliance on confession for conviction 73.There is no legislative provision in Benin banning the use of evidence obtained under torture. The delegation discussed with various interlocutors the possibility under Benin law of convictions being based solely on confession, and this was generally considered as a problematic practice of the past. As to the reliance on confessions for convictions, article 397 (onwards) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that confessions, like all other evidence, shall be evaluated at the court’s discretion, and that guilt may be established by any form of evidence. 74.Several persons deprived of their liberty indicated that they had been asked by law enforcement officers to sign a statement about the case while in initial custody. Some of those who could read had signed without reading the document; one had signed after reading; one had refused to sign. Others had signed by thumbprint, since they could not read or write, but none reported having had the statement read to them. Furthermore, a detainee at Dantokpa police station indicated that he refused to make a statement implicating him in a case of breaking and entering. He was beaten severely, and explicitly told the delegation “but I did not confess”. In his mind, the ill-treatment was aimed at extracting a confession. 75.In this context it should be recalled that the safeguard of a lawyer’s involvement does not apply in initial custody, since in Benin most people do not benefit from the assistance of the legal representative at this stage. 76. The SPT recommends that no pressure be exerted to make detainees confess to an offence. The SPT further recommends that detainees are able to know and understand what is in the statement before signing it, for example by being provided with the statement to read or by having it read to them. The SPT recommends that the authorities consider reviewing the legislation to guarantee the right to silence. 77.The SPT considers that the possibility of criminal conviction based solely on confession opens the way for certain individuals to abuse the process by trying to extract confessions by ill-treating persons deprived their liberty. Such conduct is never acceptable and in some cases could amount to torture. In this respect, the SPT would like to highlight the prohibition to take undue advantage of the situation of a detained or imprisoned person for the purpose of compelling him to confess, to incriminate himself otherwise or to testify against any other person, and the principle that no detained person while being interrogated shall be subject to violence, threats or methods of interrogation which impair his capacity of decision or his judgment. The SPT considers an evidence-led, and not confession-led, criminal investigation to be one of the fundamental safeguards,as it would render having recourse to extracting confessions by means of ill-treatment meaningless, and thus reduce considerably the risk of ill-treatment of persons in police custody. 78. The SPT recommends that the authorities review the legislation regarding confessions with a view to eliminating the possibility for convictions based solely on confession. The SPT also recommends that police training in investigative methods emphasise the need to proceed from the evidence to the suspect rather than the reverse. 5.Notification of deprivation of liberty to family as a safeguard against ill-treatment 79.Police and gendarmerie officials informed the delegation that, as a matter of course, they informed the families of detainees of their arrest. Among detainees interviewed, many reported that their family knew where they were, because they had been picked up either at home or in the presence of a friend or acquaintance, who had contacted their family. Very few people interviewed reported that their families had been notified by the police or the gendarmerie about their detention. On the contrary, several people interviewed indicated that they had not been able to notify family, despite repeated requests. 80.In the absence of a budget for food for persons held in police and gendarmeries (see further below), detainees have to rely on family to feed them. Notification of custody is therefore important not only for due process rights, but also to meet their most basic needs. In this regard, the SPT observed that most places visited displayed visiting hours, which in practice seemed to be very flexible, so as to enable detainees to receive visits and therefore food. 81.The right to notify someone on the outside about the fact of one’s deprivation of liberty is an important safeguard against illtreatment; those who might otherwise resort to ill-treatment may be deterred by the knowledge that someone outside has been notified and may be vigilant about the detained person’s well-being. The SPT notes that this right is all the more important in the current situation in which legal aid is not available at the initial stage of police custody.