A/HRC/45/33 individuals to forced nudity, sometimes for days. Male custodians threatened to rape male detainees with pointed objects, mainly sticks and bats, and in one case raped a detainee. Electric shocks and blows were administered, including to the testicles. 68. In most of the cases investigated, the victims were not brought to a medical professional prior to their initial court appearance. In some cases, medical professionals provided medical evidence indicating that detainees were in good health or had not suffered mistreatment, despite visible evidence to the contrary. 69. After initial court appearances, detainees were held in pretrial detention at one of several facilities, although most often in the premises of the Directorate General of Military Counter-intelligence in Boleíta or in Ramo Verde military prison. In the full report, the mission describes detention conditions in detail. In many cases, especially in the Directorate premises in Boleíta, conditions were poor enough to amount to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. 70. In some cases reviewed, while detained and awaiting trial in one of several detention centres, individuals were also subjected to torture consisting mainly of harsh disciplinary regimes and severe punishments during their detention, including reprisals for complaints. (c) Justice system 71. The mission found that some public prosecutors and judges played a direct role in cases amounting to arbitrary detention. In many cases, it is difficult to determine whether actors in the justice system willingly participated in the arbitrary detention or whether they did so under pressure. 72. The cases investigated did not provide indications that the legality of detentions was subject to judicial review. At various procedural stages, the State did not provide sound evidence to sustain defendants’ participation in the commission of punishable acts. Accusations against defendants were later revealed to be false or based upon manipulated evidence. Confessions were extracted without a lawyer present or under duress. Civilians were also charged with military crimes and contained within the Organic Code on Military Justice, treason against the homeland (art. 464), 9 theft of military belongings (art. 570), rebellion (art. 476) or outrage against the sentinel (art. 501 ff). 73. Non-compliance with procedural time frames established in the Criminal Procedure Code was systematic. These delays resulted in extended periods of pretrial detention 10 that exceeded two years in many cases. Courts failed to respond to habeas corpus or other judicial review requests that were filed by the detainees or their lawyers to question the delays. Some detainees remained in custody despite having served their sentences. The vast majority of cases reviewed by the mission remained in the preparatory or intermediary phases, despite the time limits for those phases having expired in most cases. 74. All cases reviewed revealed recurrent violations of due process guarantees under domestic and international standards. Political and military detainees also faced interference with the right to adequate defence and a lawyer of their choosing. In addition, in many of the cases documented, courts ignored defendants’ requests for privately hired representation and assigned public defenders instead. 75. When defendants were able to secure representation by private lawyers, the lawyer’s ability to prepare an adequate defence was hindered. Sometimes lawyers were not provided with essential documents. At other times, lawyers were not informed of court dates. Lawyers also complained that they faced limitations on visits with their clients and/or suffered various forms of harassment and intimidation against them or their families. 76. The mission found that processes for the distribution of cases were often circumvented in order to ensure that cases were assigned to specific prosecutors and judges. Judges and prosecutors have also said that they have been improperly pressured. Franklin Nieves, the 9 10 Treason is also contemplated in arts. 128 ff of the Criminal Code (2005). Criminal Procedure Code, art. 236. 9