A/HRC/28/29 those specific areas that had been scrutinized, and that the structure of the whole Standard Minimum Rules was not being put in question. The more sensitive areas that would require much discussion included health care, the special needs of groups in vulnerable situations, the right of access to legal representation throughout the execution of a sentence, disciplinary actions, complaints and independent inspection processes, and investigations into deaths in custody. Ms. Barzanò also underlined the importance of addressing the causes of prison problems that were directly connected to sentencing and criminal policies at the national level. Through its technical assistance, UNODC sought to promote a dialogue at the national level to ensure that criminal policies were more balanced and consistent, as they were the root cause of overuse of detention, including pretrial detention and the excessive length of sentences, which in turn had a negative impact on the administration of prisons. IV. Summary of the discussion 20. During the interactive discussion, delegates from Algeria, Austria, Burkina Faso, China, Colombia, Cuba, Denmark, Egypt, Estonia, the European Union, France, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Morocco, Pakistan, Portugal, Switzerland, Ukraine, the United States of America and Uruguay took the floor, as well as from the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). 21. Delegates from national human rights mechanisms and non-governmental organizations also took the floor, representing the Association for the Prevention of Torture, Defence for Children International, the International Catholic Child Bureau (Peru), the Ombudsman from Georgia and the Friends World Committee for Consultation (Quakers). A joint statement was presented by Penal Reform International. A representative of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) also took the floor. 22. Delegates welcomed the convening and organization of the panel discussion, which they viewed as a useful platform for the discussion of good practices and sharing relevant experiences, and as an opportunity to reiterate their commitment to improving the situation of persons deprived of their liberty. 23. The delegations agreed on a number of general points, including that the deprivation of liberty placed individuals at risk of human rights violations, and that persons deprived of their liberty should enjoy the same human rights protection as any other individual, taking into account the lawful limitations rendered necessary by the fact of their incarceration. Several delegations noted that the incorporation of international standards into national legislation and policies related to the detention of persons deprived of their liberty. For example, one delegation highlighted the fact that the rights of persons deprived of their liberty were enshrined in the national Constitution. Several delegations expressed their support for a revision of the Standard Minimum Rules. Some pointed out that prisons, as they were known nowadays, had failed to fulfil their original purpose, namely, the rehabilitation of offenders and their reintegration into society. A. Monitoring bodies and judicial oversight mechanisms 24. During the interactive discussion, participants highlighted the fact that there were many international human rights mechanisms dealing with the rights of persons deprived of their liberty, including human rights treaty bodies (in particular the Human Rights Committee, the Committee against Torture and the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture), and special procedures mandate holders (including the Working Group on 7