“…the principle of confidentiality must not become an obstacle to the reporting of medical evidence indicative of ill-treatment which health-care professionals gather in a given case. To allow this to happen would run counter to the legitimate interests of detained persons in general and to society as a whole. . . . The CPT is therefore in favour of an automatic reporting obligation for health-care professionals working in prisons or other places of deprivation of liberty when they gather such information. In fact, such an obligation already exists under the law of many States visited by the CPT, but is often not fully respected in practice. In several recent visit reports, the CPT has recommended that existing procedures be reviewed in order to ensure that whenever injuries are recorded by a health-care professional which are consistent with allegations of ill-treatment made by a detained person, that information is immediately and systematically brought to the attention of the relevant authority, regardless of the wishes of the person concerned. If a detained person is found to bear injuries which are clearly indicative of ill-treatment (e.g. extensive bruising of the soles of the feet) but refuses to reveal their cause or gives a reason unrelated to ill-treatment, his/ her statement should be accurately documented and reported to the authority concerned together with a full account of the objective medical findings.”69 2.3.5 States should ensure a wide range of avenues through which individuals or their representatives can confidentially communicate complaints of ill-treatment to the competent domestic and international authorities, including superior officers and governmental institutions, judicial and prosecutorial authorities, specialised complaints bodies and inspection and monitoring mechanisms. 2.3.6 Individuals must be able to exercise their rights under Article 8 of the ECHR by sending to the competent authorities/bodies uncensored written correspondence. The right to respect for private correspondence is also important for ensuring that information relating to ill-treatment reaches the appropriate authorities. This is especially important given the vulnerability of detainees. It is difficult to think of any practical justification that could be put forward for interfering with a detainee’s right to communicate with bodies such as those indicated in Guideline 2.3.5. The relevant bodies are usually specified in domestic legislation, but there is also an international framework in accordance with provisions such as Article 34 of the ECHR. There is a case-law in the Strasbourg Court that deals with the right to respect of correspondence 69. CPT’s 23rd General Report [CPT/Inf (2013) 29], para. 77. Explanatory note ► Page 35