E/CN.4/2001/66/Add.2 page 43 some instances they had been deprived of their belongings and their clothes. The limit of 30 days was not always respected, as some prisoners alleged to have been kept in isolation or punishment cells for more than two months. In most cases, if not all, detainees in punishment cells declared that they had been placed there upon the decision of the director of the prison or the head of security. They had not been heard by any other body such as the disciplinary council referred to above. They had therefore not been able to give their interpretation of the facts or to ensure their defence. Many of them did not know for how long they would be kept in isolation or punishment cells. This was particularly flagrant in the case of Anibal Bruno Prison (State of Pernambuco) where the Special Rapporteur, who had been given the list of punishments by the prison authorities, found himself informing the detainees of the reasons for, as well as the length of their punishment. A number of detainees referred to collective punishment (see above and annex). In particular, visits were said to have been suspended indiscriminately for all prisoners for events involving only some of them. 4. External monitoring 128. With respect to external monitoring of prisons, the LEP identifies seven mechanisms responsible for penal execution, six of which have prison monitoring functions,50 namely the National Council of Criminal and Penitentiary Policy,51 penal execution judges, public prosecutors, the Penitentiary Council (i.e. local prison councils), the Penitentiary Department and the Community Council. In particular, it must be noted that the penal execution judges,52 as well as the public prosecutors,53 must inspect penitentiaries on a monthly basis to verify that the LEP provisions are respected. The Penitentiary Council, which must consist of professionals and academics working on penal law appointed by the state governors, have a similar obligation54 and must present to the National Council on Criminal and Penitentiary Policy a report on its findings during the first trimester of each year. Finally, according to the LEP, each district should establish a Community Council composed of individuals from different professions55 which has the duty to “visit, at least once a month, penal establishments in the area, interview prisoners, present monthly reports to the penal execution judge and to the Penitentiary Council, work towards the acquisition of material and human resources for better assistance for prisoners and detained persons, in cooperation with the director of the establishment.”56 It must be noted that in the State of S��o Paulo, there also exists an Administrative Internal Affairs Division of the Penitentiary System that belongs to the State Secretariat for the Penitentiary Administration and is responsible for the inspection of detention facilities. Finally, the Special Rapporteur notes the crucial role played in monitoring respect for human rights by the Prison Ministry (Pastoral Carceiraria) which has quasi-official status and has access to all places of detention on a countrywide basis. It was nevertheless regretted that the Prison Ministry lacked sufficient personnel resources in some places to carry out its functions properly despite the dedication of its members. 129. Despite all these provisions, it is reported that inspections of detention facilities have in many instances been hampered by prison authorities. According to a prosecutor met by the Special Rapporteur in Brasilia, public prosecutors are not allowed to visit either police stations or