E/CN.4/1995/31/Add.4 page 14 Furthermore, the Working Group was not authorized to consult the committal records on the grounds of "defence confidentiality", although it finally proposed consulting the records simply to determine the number of prisoners present, without noting the names. In one of the camps visited (A-20), the Working Group had the impression, for example, that there might be some disparity between the number of prisoners who could be accommodated and the estimate of the actual number of inmates. However, it was not possible to enter the detention premises (which are collective and do not contain cells) when the prisoners were present, because persons who were not members of the prison staff were not permitted access to them. Consequently, the Working Group was unable to ascertain whether any transfers had taken place. 44. This lack of transparency is doubly detrimental. Firstly, it can lead to errors in that the only way of proceeding is by extrapolation, deduction and cross-checks (see, in annex 1, the list - necessarily approximate - of the various places of detention drawn up by the Working Group on the basis of data provided by the Centre for Human Rights). Secondly, it can lead to the impression that the authorities concerned have something to hide. 45. The Vietnamese authorities having acquiesced to the visit of the Working Group, the Group hoped that the spirit of cooperation with which the Government had welcomed it would have percolated down to the lower echelons of the prison bureaucracy who were ultimately responsible for the detailed management of the visits. The Working Group believes that the difficulties encountered by it, as the visit progressed, were not the result of a deliberate posture on the part of the authorities but could be attributed to both lack of experience and the absence of effective communication between bureaucratic levels. Whereas in camp A-5 access to the prisoners was relatively easy, the Group encountered some difficulties in camps A-20 and Z-30. Hesitation on the part of the local authorities to admit the presence at Camp A-5 of prisoners convicted for having committed offences against the State was unnecessary on account of the inevitable discovery of their existence at the time of conducting interviews. The authorities admitted to their existence in the Group’s subsequent visits to camp A-20 and camp Z-30. The Group noted that the prison authorities unnecessarily withheld information on the number of persons serving sentences in the prisons and the categories to which they belonged, since such details would have enabled the Group better to appreciate and understand the prevalent situation. The long distances required to be covered by road, together with the wariness with which prison officials approached a "first visit", added to the difficulties. The authorities were not even willing to inform the Group of the number of prisoners by referring to their own registers and were both cautious and circumspect about allowing the Group to have free access to the prisoners after they returned from the fields in the evening. The necessary atmosphere of transparency essential to make such visits entirely satisfactory was lacking. Yet the Group was able, despite obvious handicaps, to interview prisoners of its choice, in many instances without the presence of a government representative. The Group noted that at camp Z-30, the last visited, the authorities highlighted the positive aspects of prison life. 46. The reality described above does not take away from the historic significance of the visit, the importance of which lies in the willingness of the Vietnamese people to look at themselves through the eyes of others. This