E/CN.4/2004/3/Add.3 page 19 62. The Working Group, which is more concerned with the legal framework for detention than with detention conditions, nevertheless observed overcrowding and poor conditions in the areas of security, health, food, clothing and sanitation in most of the detention centres that it visited. Such poor conditions, to which attention was drawn a long time ago, could, and in fact do, restrict the right of persons deprived of their liberty to a proper defence during their trial. Although the Working Group realizes that public insecurity is a major concern in Argentina, neglect and disregard for prisoners’ rights do not constitute an effective means of dealing with this problem; on the contrary, it aggravates the problem. 63. Lastly, since the Government and civil society organizations agree that there are long-standing problems, some of which were encountered by the delegation, it is to be hoped that the Government, which has demonstrated a strong desire to approach human rights in a different way from previous Governments, will take urgent and significant steps that can be supported by civil society organizations to combat the practice of arbitrary detention and improve the situation of detainees with regard to their human rights, particularly their right to due process. Of particular concern to the Working Group are the excessive length and excessive use of pre-trial detention; the authority of the police to make arrests for minor offences in order to carry out background and identity checks; the detention of children, members of sexual minorities and foreigners; and detention in connection with social protest. B. Recommendations 64. The Working Group invites the Government of Argentina to review its legislation and practices in the area of pre-trial detention at both the federal and provincial levels. Pre-trial detention should be the exception, not the rule, and should be as short as possible. It should not be used in cases of minor criminal offences, when there is merely a suspicion that an offence was committed or when there are other ways of ensuring that the accused appears in court and does not obstruct justice. Alternatives to pre-trial detention should be sought; these might include house arrest, release on bail or on parole, or electronic monitoring of a person’s movements. These alternatives should be introduced in places where they do not already exist, and their use should be encouraged when they are authorized by law. At the legislative level, the Government should reconsider the provisions that restrict judges’ discretion by obliging them to order pre-trial detention on the basis of the penalty for the corresponding offence. Bail should not be set too high. No one should remain in prison once the maximum period of pre-trial detention has lapsed if they have not yet been brought to trial. 65. Judges should issue decisions ordering pre-trial detention after a substantive, not merely formal, analysis of each case. The decision should be taken by the judge himself after hearing the detainee in person, not by investigating judges or clerks of the court. The suspect should be notified of the decision by the judge in person, not by the prison or police authorities. In accordance with international standards, all detainees should have the right to argue their case against detention in person before the judge.