the obstacles they face in the exercise of their duties. These include: Delays in dispatching the certificate of sentence on the part of the trial and sentencing courts, which constitute an obstacle to rapid sentence enforcement, as well as delays in giving notice of pretrial detention. This notification is essential to enable the enforcement judge to determine how long the detainee should remain in pretrial custody. Absence of mechanisms for verifying periods of pretrial detention that provide reliable data. Enforcement judges should also have the power to act when the period of pretrial detention is exceeded and not be restricted to simply informing the trial court. Tardiness in granting the prison benefits to which detainees are entitled. Failure to segregate convicted and remand prisoners. Failure on the part of the prison authorities to provide timely information on admissions, releases and transfers. Limited availability of logistical equipment (computers, photocopiers, vehicles) and lack of adequate computer programs to access information on detainees’ procedural status. Lack of a network interconnection between the prison system and the court system, which would allow for closer monitoring of sentence enforcement. Lack of specialist staff, specifically psychologists and social workers, who can intervene, inter alia, in relation to detainees’ applications for legal entitlements. Lack of auxiliary staff. Insufficient number of enforcement judges. For example, in Tegucigalpa prison there are only 5 judges for approximately 2,500 inmates. Insufficient training for judges in relation to the prison system. Lack of any real institutional policy for the prison system. In the majority of cases, the staff appointed to key positions lack the required skills and experience. Inadequate flow of information between enforcement judges and prison authorities, due to apathy on the part of the prison authorities. Corruption among prison staff and persons selected to coordinate inmates. Lack of institutional support for enforcement judges to ensure they carry due weight with the prison authorities when prisoners’ rights are violated. Lack of commitment among prison staff to improving prison conditions and providing a better service. Lack of training for prison wardens in the duties they are required to perform. At present, only four wardens have a professional background in the prison service. Indifference on the part of the prison authorities towards compliance with judges’ decisions on inmates’ complaints of violations of their rights. 183.The enforcement judges also indicated that the prison service frequently cites lack of budget as a justification for violations of the rights of detainees. However, the judges did not share this view and believed that there was a lack of political will to improve the prison situation. They referred to specific problems, such as the failure to assign a doctor to the prison in El Progreso, even though the enforcement judge had been requesting one for the past two years. They were confident that the situation would improve if the prison system bill currently before Congress was passed. 184. With regard to enforcement judges, the Subcommittee recommends that the State party should: (a) Enact reforms that establish an adequate legal basis for the duties currently performed by enforcement judges in relation to persons in pretrial detention, in particular in ensuring compliance with the maximum periods of pretrial detention. In this connection, provision should be made as a matter of urgency for a system whereby judges and trial courts can communicate their decisions on pretrial detention and sentences to enforcement judges immediately. The existing restrictions on access to such information prevent enforcement judges from investigating possible violations of due process, such as excessive delays due to inaction on the part of prosecutors, public defenders or judges, or investigating the omission of essential procedures (application by the prosecutor for a preliminary hearing; applications by public defenders for discontinuance, etc.). An appropriate communication system would help to reduce prison overcrowding, uphold legal safeguards, and limit the scope for arbitrary action and corruption; (b) Take steps to ensure that the Prison Department keeps reliable records of admissions and releases and informs the enforcement judges thereof in a timely manner; (c) Take steps to ensure that enforcement judges have the auxiliary support necessary to allow them to maintain a staff presence when they are away from their offices, as well as the means of transport necessary to enable them to increase the quantity and quality of personal inspections of prisons;