A/HRC/28/29 Arbitrary Detention and the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment). 25. The Association for the Prevention of Torture recalled that the Optional Protocol to the Convention on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment had established the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture, and required each State party to maintain, designate or establish national preventive mechanisms. Both the Subcommittee and national preventive mechanisms frequently visited places where persons may be deprived of their liberty, and made recommendations on improving conditions of detention and promoting changes in legislation and policies over the long term. Many delegations acknowledged the important role played by these monitoring bodies, and stressed in particular the importance of their independence, adequate funding and qualified human resources. 26. One delegation described the establishment of a national preventive mechanism and the changes to the State’s penitentiary law, which now provided detainees with the right to communicate with the inspector of the place of detention and the right to request a visit by the inspector through a representative office established in the place of detention. 27. Several delegations also emphasized the fact that such monitoring bodies could not be totally efficient without the collaboration of the State and its officials, in particular law enforcement officials and personnel working in places of detention. One delegation pointed out that the State’s national preventive mechanism had greatly benefited from adequate and secure funding, and could count on the cooperation of the personnel working in places of detention, who had been properly informed of the mandate of the mechanism. A representative of a national human rights institution stated that, in its latest report, the institution had highlighted the lack of independence, impartiality and effectiveness of investigations into cases of torture and mistreatment perpetrated by law enforcement agents. It was also noted that the impact of national preventive mechanisms could be strengthened through the creation of independent investigative bodies tasked with handling allegations of torture and ill-treatment committed by law enforcement officials. 28. Delegations also raised the question of judicial oversight of the legality of detention. They highlighted the importance of providing persons deprived of their liberty with the opportunity to challenge their detention and to obtain redress for human rights violations experienced during detention, although this possibility did not exist in all States. The connection between substandard conditions of detention and the unlawfulness of detention was also made. It was suggested that when persons are detained in conditions that do not respect their human dignity, the legitimacy of such detention is undermined. The Chairperson of the Human Rights Committee underlined that, as stated by the Committee in its general comment No. 35 on article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, judicial review includes not only a review of the process of detention itself, but also a review of treatment in detention. 29. Several delegations stressed the importance of technical assistance and the exchange of expertise at the regional and international levels. There was also strong demand for the sharing of good practices in criminal justice systems. For example, one delegation suggested inter-State cooperation to improve implementation of the Convention against Torture. 30. Delegations gave examples of good practices regarding monitoring bodies and judicial oversight. Independent and prompt investigations into complaints, and regular inspections of prisons by prosecutors, were mentioned as ways that could contribute to guaranteeing the rights of persons deprived of their liberty. One delegation underlined the requirement of being represented by a lawyer and having interpretation provided when necessary. 8