hour a day outside in the yard or 15 minutes a day in the corridor from Monday to Friday. Whatever the case, the Subcommittee is concerned that in practice, the isolation regime is beyond the control of the courts, as the Public Defender has observed. 67. It is urgent for the State to change the existing isolation regime, in both the federal and the provincial systems, so as to guarantee the rights of persons deprived of their liberty. Isolation should be an exceptional measure, strictly limited in time and subject to medical and judicial supervision; it should not be used as a tool for prison management. Isolation cells should provide conditions that respect the physical integrity and dignity of the person deprived of liberty. 68. The Subcommittee understands that for different reasons, some detainees may require tighter security measures. However, it must be understood that these measures may not be transformed into an additional penalty to that handed down by the court, as this would be contrary to the principles of equality before the law and of non-discrimination. This requirement of equal treatment is all the more necessary in respect of those who have not yet been sentenced. For this reason, the Subcommittee considers that any security measure that unreasonably aggravates the conditions of detention constitutes a form of ill-treatment of persons deprived of their liberty. (e)Contact with the outside world 69.The Subcommittee received complaints that family visits were too short and sporadic and that the regime of visits was not equally applied to all. Some inmates complained of the limits imposed on their right to intimate visits from their partners when they are not married. Some relatives of inmates told the Subcommittee that access formalities to prisons were too long. 70. The State party should ensure that all persons deprived of their liberty are able to receive regular visits, including conjugal visits, regardless of whether the partnership is formally recognized by the State; such visits should not be restricted on grounds of sex, nationality, sexual orientation or for any other discriminatory reason. The issuing of permits to visitors should be speeded up and steps taken to ensure that inmates are able to receive telephone calls from their relatives. 71.The Subcommittee received complaints about harassment and ill-treatment of relatives during visits. The complaints described invasive searches, including full body searches, patting down visitors, even children, babies and pregnant women and forcing them to bend over. They also spoke of insults and threats by the prison staff responsible for the body searches, thereby discouraging any attempt to complain about the treatment for fear of reprisals against relatives deprived of their liberty. 72. The Subcommittee recommends that the State party ensure that intimate body searches are carried out only when necessary and that they are reasonable and proportional. If body searches are conducted, they should be performed hygienically by qualified staff of the same sex as the person being searched and should be compatible with human dignity and respect for fundamental rights. Invasive vaginal or anal searches should be prohibited. 73. Staff supervising visits should be informed of the obligation to respect the rights of all persons. An independent system should be introduced for complaints of ill-treatment, and should include independent investigations and penalties. 3.Violence during incarceration 74.The Subcommittee received repeated and consistent accounts according to which persons deprived of their liberty are subject to a form of control under which the prison staff with whom they are in day-to-day contact, headed by the warder in charge of the wing or the warder supervising and dealing with them handles everything to do with the submission of complaints, requests, needs and the disciplinary regime. For this purpose, they rely on inmates known as “limpieza” (cleaners) or “fajineros”, persons deprived of their liberty who serve as go-betweens between the other detainees and the prison administration. In this connection, the Subcommittee received complaints about thefts or removal of belongings; threats; extortion to obtain greater security or better treatment in exchange for money; the supply and sale of drugs; physical assaults; provoking fights and conflicts between inmates, with the connivance of prison staff, to create diversions or maintain control; transfers inside prisons to tougher wings or to isolation wings; reduction of the food ration and the number of visits, and privileged access to education and work programmes. 75.This system of threats and risks, the lack of an effective system for reporting and investigating abuses, combined with the fear of reprisals for reporting them to the prison administration, creates a situation in which persons deprived of their liberty, even if not directly affected, live in a state of constant fear of physical harm coming to themselves or their families, or damage to their belongings. The Subcommittee witnessed a telling episode in Unit No. 1 (Lisandro Olmos), in which prison warders apparently provided a prisoner held in solitary confinement with a home-made weapon (a faca, a type of large knife) and told him to kill another inmate, on pain of reprisals if he failed to do so. When the Subcommittee told the prison authorities of this, a search of the cell was carried out and the weapon was found. 76.The Subcommittee takes note of the information provided by the State party after its visit, according to which an administrative investigation was begun into this incident and that shortcomings were found in body searches, checks on admission, in access to cells and wings and in the mechanisms used to prevent acts of violence. The investigation led to charges being laid against four wardens for disciplinary offences. The Subcommittee observes, however, that the facts were not brought to the attention of the Public Legal Service, but merely remained at the level of an administrative investigation. This would seem to suggest that the prison authorities operate as a state within the State. The Subcommittee looks forward to receiving additional information on the investigation and on the situation of the inmate in question, and in particular on whether he has been or is likely to be a victim of any reprisals. 77.Beyond this particular incident, in U1 the Subcommittee felt a palpable climate of brutality and fear at all levels. Although inmates were as a rule reluctant to talk to the members of the Subcommittee and the attitude of the warders considerably hampered any confidential interviews, some inmates suggested that there were killings that were disguised as suicides. Moreover, the large number