A/HRC/16/52/Add.3 B. Acts of torture and ill-treatment in places of detention 36. On the basis of discussions with public officials, judges, lawyers and representatives of civil society, interviews with victims of violence and with persons deprived of their liberty (often supported by forensic medical evidence), the Special Rapporteur did not find that torture, in the classical sense of deliberately inflicting severe pain or suffering as a means of extracting a confession of information, was a major problem in Jamaica. This is due in part to the safeguard in the legislation providing for a lawyer or a justice of the peace to be present during all interrogations. He did, however, find many cases, corroborated by medical evidence, of people being subjected to different degrees of beatings for the purpose of punishment, which can also amount to torture. This was the case, for example, in the events which took place at Horizon Remand Centre on 8 February 2010 (see paragraphs 4245 below). C. Conditions of detention 37. The Special Rapporteur was particularly concerned at the conditions of detention in police stations, reflecting a complete disrespect for the human dignity of detainees and prisoners, made worse by a general atmosphere of violence and aggression from both the police and detainees. In correctional facilities, the conditions differed significantly between facilities, although they were generally better than in police stations. It was also evident during the interviews that detainees had no knowledge of or trust in any complaints mechanisms available to them. Additionally, the Special Rapporteur found a poor completion of complaint entries in the police registers. 1. Police stations 38. The conditions in police stations can generally be regarded as inhuman and the treatment arbitrary. The Special Rapporteur found detainees held in cells that were overcrowded, filthy and infested with rats, cockroaches and lice. In addition, many of the cells were in complete darkness, and had poor ventilation and an unbearable stench. Detainees were forced to stay in their cells for most of the day, with very limited time allowed out of their cells. As a result, they were dependent on police officers to allow them to use the toilet in the corridors. When the officers refused, they were forced to urinate and defecate in plastic bags, bottles and plates, in front of their cellmates. The majority of police stations did not have mattresses; detainees were therefore forced to sleep on concrete beds and, when the cells were overcrowded, on the floor. Visits were infrequent and only for a few minutes. In many instances, detainees could not see their families. When they were allowed, they had to speak through grills. Access to medical care also depended on the goodwill of the authorities. ineffective, but is intended to provide prosecutors with enough evidence to proceed against persons who may have committed an offence. In addition, under section 94 of the Constitution, the Department is empowered to undertake criminal proceedings against any person where it considers it desirable. A decision not to prosecute by the Department does not amount to refusal or reluctance on frivolous grounds, but rather that it may be unable to prosecute the matter if there is not enough evidence to charge anyone. Persons alleging an incorrect decision by the Department not to prosecute have the right to seek judicial review in the Courts. The Government also provided statistics from the Bureau of Special Investigations on fatal shooting incidents. For the period 2005 – 2009, there were 1,004 fatal incidents and 1,188 fatalities. Furthermore, 111 police officers were charged during the same period for offences ranging from shooting with intent to murder. Of these, 448 cases were forwarded to the Coroner’s Court. The Department made 17 rulings for murder, and 34 police officers were charged. 10