E/CN.4/2004/56/Add.3 page 9 be approved, it is reported that the RDD regime is already in use in the States of São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro. Prisoners under this regime are reportedly kept incommunicado, and most of them are not given any explanation for their punishment. 35. Finally, the Special Rapporteur has been informed that judicial organs have justified the improper housing of convicted prisoners in police stations by arguing that if the inmates were not kept there, they would have to be released, which would violate the legal obligation to ensure that convicted prisoners serve their sentences. 36. Recommendation (d) stated: Close family members of persons detained should be immediately informed of their relatives’ detention and be given access to them. Measures should be taken to ensure that visitors to police lock-ups, provisional detention facilities and prisons are subjected to security checks that are respectful of their dignity. 37. According to the information received, in many cases relatives do not receive information about the whereabouts or transfer of prisoners. Concern has also been expressed over allegations of incidents of torture during transfer. Further, the Special Rapporteur has been informed that visitors frequently have to undergo intimate searches and that in many places of detention, female visitors are searched in an embarrassing, humiliating and degrading manner. The Special Rapporteur has also been informed that in March 2001, the National Council on Penitentiary Policy adopted a resolution on the observance of certain criteria during searches. The resolution reportedly conditioned the disbursement of resources from the Penitentiary Fund to adherence to these guidelines. The Special Rapporteur would appreciate receiving information on whether this condition is enforced. 38. The Special Rapporteur has also been informed that visiting privileges continue to be suspended as a form of punishment in cases of uprisings. Concern has been expressed that this measure may be taken with a view to preventing visitors from noticing any possible marks of torture or beatings suffered by the inmates in the course of suppressing uprisings or as retribution. 39. Recommendation (e) stated: Any person under arrest should be informed of his/her continuing right to consult privately with a lawyer at any time and to receive independent free legal advice where he/she cannot afford a private lawyer. No police officer shall at any time dissuade a person in detention from obtaining legal advice. A statement of detainees’ rights, such as the Law on Penal Execution (LEP), should be readily available at all places of detention for consultation by detained persons and members of the public. 40. According to the information received, independent free legal advice is not yet guaranteed to individuals deprived of their liberty. The LEP reportedly does not stipulate that the Public Defender’s Office is in charge of representing detainees. Moreover, six states continue to lack a Public Defender’s Office. 41. Recommendation (f) stated: A separate custody record should be opened for any person under arrest, showing the time and reasons for arrest, the identity of the arresting officers, the time and reasons for any subsequent transfers, in particular to court or a Forensic Medical Institute, and the time a person is released from detention or transferred