A/HRC/22/56 military, one by the morality forces and 16 by unknown plain clothed agents. In most cases (68%) the state authority that had arrested them and the one that detained and tortured them was thought to be the same. The largest number of cases overall reported being both arrested and detained by Etela’at and the Basij, with a significant number reporting that they were detained by the police (indeed four specific police stations were identified). A small number of other places of detention that were identified (usually on release) included: four prisons (two in or near Tehran), three Etela’at facilities and two Basij bases in various locations around the country. However, 21 people (42%) said that they did not know with certainty which state force they were detained by and the majority (64%) also could not identify the specific place where they were detained, because they were blindfolded en route and/or because it was an unofficial facility and could not be identified. Due process during arrest and ill treatment en route to detention 48. Of the 50 cases, only four reported being issued with a charge and only one with a warrant at the time of arrest. All 27 people who reported being arrested on a protest or demonstration said that they experienced violence and ill treatment both during arrest and en route to the detention facility. Most described being beaten with batons, sworn at with obscenities and other verbal abuse. Other cases who were arrested from their home or other private address for activities (actual or alleged) connected to the election protests reported similar treatment, with family members being violently treated, subject to threats and verbal abuse and personal property being destroyed or illegally confiscated. Most people (86%), whatever the cause of arrest, reported that they were blindfolded and handcuffed en route to detention; in some cases they were fully hooded and cuffed in stress positions. 49. It should be noted that there is typically a considerable time lag between when a person is detained and when they seek Freedom from Torture’s medico-legal report services in the UK. It is therefore likely that evidence of detention and torture from 2010 onwards will increase as MLRs are completed for Iranian cases referred to Freedom from Torture more recently. Due process during detention 50. All 50 cases reported being held incommunicado and tortured. The majority (80%) described interrogation that was concurrent with torture episodes (sometimes alternating). Most (74%) reported that they could not see their interrogators as they were kept blindfolded and in the majority of cases interrogation appeared to be focused specifically on forcing a confession to actual or alleged offences. These included attending demonstrations, belonging to or being active in illegal political groups, organising protests and involvement in other dissentient actions. Interrogation also focused on links with or on the activities of others, including family members. Some, particularly those who were or had been resident abroad, were questioned about links with foreign agents and exiled political groups and activists. 51. Nearly half the cases in the study (48%) said they were forced under torture to sign confessions or statements about future activities; all but three of these had not seen the contents of these documents. Six cases reported refusing to sign confessions despite being tortured with the stated intent of forcing them to do so. In most cases individuals reported being given a conditional release following a confession, while some were transferred to prison, pending formal summons to attend court. 52. In most cases no formal charges were made (88%) and there was no access to legal counsel (96%) or a judicial process (88%). Of the 50, only six cases received charges in front of a judge, all following a confession forced under torture. Of these, only two had access to 37