PART D: Torture in the Promotional Mandate of the African Commission The prison visit format is as follows: – – – A preliminary interview with the head of the institution takes place. Visits are then undertaken to places of detention and to medical facilities. In the detention facilities, the SRP addresses the inmates. The SRP then visits and inspect the cells, taking notes. Thereafter a selected number of detainees are interviewed privately, in camera, with no officials present. The SRP returns to the officer in charge, making on-the-spot recommendations if required. After the visit, a draft visit report is prepared and sent to the highest government penal affairs official for his or her comments. The Special Rapporteur is not required to amend reports based on the comments of States, unless they refer to clear inaccuracies, however such comments are attached to the report when it is published by the Commission. In some cases, these comments are indicative of the constructive dialogue between the Special Rapporteur and States, for example the comments from Malawi which included an expression of gratitude for the comprehensive nature of the report, and assurances that the authorities had noted areas for action which it highlighted.593 Although not all data is available, reports are generally published just over a year after the visit, though in some cases it has been over two years after the visits, as was the case for the SRP reports on the Special Rapporteur’s visits to Uganda and Namibia in 2001, and over three in the case of report on the visit to Cameroon in 2002. While the timeline for the publication of many other Commission documents can be up to a year, a delay of just over two or three years is excessive asI reports can be published within nine months of visits. The potential impact of the report and its recommendations depends heavily on its immediacy and currency, and the delay in publication should therefore be reduced, with nine months as a maximum. No reports examining prisons and conditions of detention have been adopted or published since 2005. The entire Commission examines the SRP’s reports. Prior to release of the first SRP report on Zimbabwe, a preliminary report was ready at the time of the Commission’s session.The Commission discussed the preliminary report, which was then contained in the Commission’s Tenth Activity Report. In subsequent Commission sessions, the SRP submitted reports regarding its activities and presented oral summaries of findings. In these sessions the full report – the one to be published – was never placed before the Commission, discussed or adopted. The final published reports are therefore not the product of the Commission, but of the SRP.Members of the Commission merely receive copies after publication. 593 F. Viljoen, International Human Rights Law in Africa, Oxford University Press: Oxford (2012), p. 375. 141