The Prohibition of Torture and Ill-treatment in the African Human Rights System: A HANDBOOK FOR VICTIMS AND THEIR ADVOCATES These reports have thus not been included in the Activity Reports that have been examined by the AU Heads of State and Government. Once published, the reports are disseminated. Reports are sent to government officials of all African countries, preferably to the address of a ‘focal point’, such as government departments dealing with justice and prison services. Reports are also sent to NGOs with a particular interest in penal affairs. There are two main avenues of dissemination: public distribution at sessions of the Commission and other Commission-related events, and mailings to relevant people and organisations. There does not seem to be a strategy in place to ensure that reports reach all officials and NGOs that participated in the SRP visit. For example, towards the end of September 2002, SRP Chirwa had a single copy of the Malawi Report, published the month prior, in her possession. On numerous occasions (in The Gambia, Malawi, Mali and Mozambique) during the evaluation the impression was left that high-ranking as well as middle-level officials had not received copies of SRP reports in respect of their countries. The nature and content of the reports vary considerably. The following basic structure is followed in the most recent reports: Introduction, Findings, Areas of Concern, Good Practices and Recommendations. The most elaborate section is the ‘Findings’ section. The sections are no longer organised by locality or chronology, but by substantive issues. Reports contain specific examples but generally provide an overview and broader picture of the situation. Under ‘Findings’, particular issues are dealt with in a set sequence.The prison system is described first. ‘Conditions of detention’ are then analysed in terms of prison population, buildings, bedding, food, outside contact, leisure, open air restrictions, relationship between staff and wardens, discipline, complaints and external and internal control. Lastly, health matters are dealt with in some detail. Findings and recommendations are sometimes not clearly formulated. Additionally, they are overly deferential to governments, and aimed at avoiding clear findings of violations of international standards.594 The lack of focus on the legal conditions of detention in the Special Rapporteur’s reports, which for the most part address the material conditions, has been noted by some commentators as problematic, particularly in light of the excessively long periods of remand detention documented in some countries where visits have taken place.595 Three follow-up visits have taken place so far, to Mali, Mozambique and Benin. The ease of organising the first visit and the general willingness of the government to 594 For an example of undue deference, consult the SRP report on the Central African Republic. 595 F. Viljoen, International Human Rights Law in Africa, Oxford University Press: Oxford (2012), p. 373. 142