CAT/OP/PAN/1 156-A to the Criminal Code, are not being adequately enforced. It seems that torture can still go unpunished. 36. That impression, in the Subcommittee’s view, is strengthened by a number of circumstances related to the detection, investigation and punishment of torture. Some of these circumstances are noted below. Lack of safeguards 37. The Subcommittee observed in various cases that persons deprived of their liberty in detention facilities were often held incommunicado and were thereby prevented from informing others of their detention, having the services of a lawyer (insufficient public defence services) or even undergoing a medical examination. 38. The Subcommittee urges the State party to adopt measures to ensure that all persons deprived of their liberty are effectively afforded all safeguards from the time they are taken into custody, in accordance with international rules and standards. Lack of public defence services 39. The Subcommittee is concerned about the unavailability of the public defence services that should be provided to persons deprived of their liberty. When such persons were invariably asked whether they received assistance from public defenders, the reply was always that they did not, which indicates that such assistance is generally lacking in places of detention. The Subcommittee received statements to the effect that it was common for legal aid to be provided only at hearings. These statements show that there is a lack of communication with persons deprived of their liberty prior to their appearance before the prosecutor or judge, at the time of their arrest and during the criminal investigation of the alleged offence. In its visits to places of detention, the Subcommittee did not encounter any public defenders. 40. The lack of public defence services is consistent with the information received from the Supreme Court, according to which there is a nationwide total of 38 public defenders working with persons serving sentences, with far too few – only 11 – in the first circuit (including Panama Province), which is home to the country’s largest prison population. 41. The Subcommittee also noted that public defence services are provided according to different models, but always with a limited number of public defenders handling the cases, whether in the inquisitorial or the adversarial systems. Some of these public defenders provide services in cases involving juvenile, family or agrarian law and in whatever cases arise in the inquisitorial system of criminal justice for adults. 42. The Subcommittee is of the view that the limited number of public defenders is a serious problem for the consolidation of the new adversarial system of justice rolled out nationwide, as the defence and the prosecution must have the same levels of staffing and resources if they are to operate effectively and the principle of equality of arms is to be observed. This problem is a serious obstacle to ensuring that public defenders can fulfil the important role they have to play in detecting torture and in representing and assisting victims, thereby guaranteeing that investigations are carried out in accordance with due process. 43. The Subcommittee urges the State party to expand public defence services throughout the country by taking measures to increase the number of public defenders, especially those who work with persons serving sentences. The State party should provide appropriate training and the resources necessary to ensure that legal aid is provided from the time a person is taken into custody, while also ensuring that persons deprived of their liberty are always interviewed before court hearings and that the length and content of the interviews are sufficient to guarantee a proper defence and the systematic detection of torture or ill-treatment. Lack of complaint mechanisms 44. In most of the facilities it visited, the Subcommittee observed a failure to provide adequate mechanisms for requests or complaints, as required under rule 56 of the United GE.18-12640 7