A/HRC/42/18 34. As acknowledged by the Government, transgender women deprived of liberty were detained in the same cells as male detainees, as penitentiary legislation does not recognize transgender people in accordance with their gender identity. 35 They were therefore subjected to visual inspection of their body cavities during routine strip searches in front of male detainees. 35. The Government states that there have been no investigations of allegations of torture and ill-treatment committed by correctional officers because the national penitentiary system “has not received [any] complaint of ill-treatment”.36 Article 12 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, however, obliges competent authorities to undertake prompt and impartial investigations wherever there is “reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed”, even in the absence of a complaint. The Government clarified that the Office of the Attorney-General had investigated four complaints of alleged ill-treatment committed by police officers of persons detained in the context of the protests, including one concerning a 14-year-old boy who allegedly had a forearm forcibly tattooed. This case was dismissed as not credible, while there has been no progress in the others, reportedly because “the complainants have not responded to the prosecutor’s summoning”.37 No other investigations against police officers were initiated in the absence of a complaint. 36. Some men and women detained in the context of the protests were subjected to solitary confinement, in some cases for months, in maximum-security cells of La Modelo and La Esperanza. Any imposition of solitary confinement beyond 15 consecutive days is prohibited under the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules)38 and may amount to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, depending on the circumstances. According to corroborated sources, the conditions in solitary confinement were precarious, with cells infested with bugs, no access to sunlight or natural light and poor ventilation despite high temperatures during the day. 37. Many other persons detained in the context of the protests in other parts of La Modelo and La Esperanza faced similar substandard conditions of detention, with no access to sunlight except for 30 minutes a week and insufficient access to water, which was of poor quality. OHCHR also documented cases of lack of, or inadequate, access to medical attention and medication for some persons detained in the context of the protests. In addition, family visits, in principle allowed every 21 days, were not regular for these detainees and were sometimes cancelled or rescheduled at short notice. 38. Although former detainees interviewed by OHCHR mentioned visits by staff of the Office of the Human Rights Advocate to places of detention, detainees did not share any complaints with them because they perceived the institution as partial and not independent. In its capacity as the national mechanism for the prevention of torture, the Office stated that during the 12 visits it conducted in 2018 to La Modelo and La Esperanza prisons, it did not find any evidence of acts of torture or ill-treatment. It indicated that the right to food and contact with the external world were ensured at all times, and that access to drinking water was regularly ensured through pipes and taps.39 VII. Right to a fair trial 39. A former justice of the Supreme Court, who resigned in January 2019, stated that charges against people in relation to the 2018 protests were politically motivated and that judges issued rulings following the Government’s narrative of the failed coup for fear of 35 36 37 38 39 Communication from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in response to the OHCHR questionnaire, pp. 36–37. Ibid., pp. 4–5. Ibid. Rules 43 and 44. Hard copy of reports of the Office of the Human Rights Advocate shared with OHCHR in March 2019. These reports are not available online. 9