- 11 - (b) A lot of the detainees experienced some delay in receiving the letter to prolong the detention time by the State Court, especially in cases where the Public Prosecutor is getting an appeal; (c) The jurisdictional decision of the execution for the detainees is often late; therefore, the detainees, who were supposed to have the status of convicted prisoners, lost their rights as prisoners; (d) In the execution case by the Public Prosecutor which is delayed, the Prosecutor often asks for the date of the execution to be coordinated with the original execution date. The Place of Detention (Rutan) accepts this request but with several notes on this fact; (e) Related to detainees received from the police, the Correctional Institutions (Lapas) often accept them in these conditions: (i) the detainees are transferred at night time, so the officers in that Lapas do not have to do any medical check-up on the detainees; and (ii) in several cases the detainees which are being transferred have shoot wounds. 36. The result of monitoring of several places of detention that has been described above, especially in Lapas and Rutan, shows explicitly how detainees are treated in ways which are still below the normative standard, subsequently the systematic prevention against torture has not been fully conducted according the Convention against Torture (CAT). 37. Besides this, what has been explained above has not yet covered the places of detention in police stations. How these police officers treat the detainees in these places of detention has also been reported as act of violence. Nevertheless, Komnas HAM has not conducted a systematic monitoring to confirm these reports accepted from members of the society. The steps for this are being prepared by Komnas HAM at the moment 38. In 2006, Komnas HAM had received complaints regarding the rights of prisoners and detainees, particularly with regard to unfairness that might occurred in the process of extending imprisonment period, conducted by the investigator, prosecutor and judges, which considered as violation to article 29 paragraph (2) and (3) of the Indonesian Criminal Code (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana or KUHAP). Therefore, Komnas HAM had conducted monitoring of several correctional institutions and detention places in Medan (Binjai), Jakarta, Batam, Banda Aceh (Jantho), Bandung, Manado, Cirebon, Purwokerto, Cilacap (Nusa Kambangan) and Yogyakarta. 39. The objectives of the monitoring are as follows: (a) To fulfil the human rights of the people going through judicial process, particularly imprisonment. (b) To uphold the law according to the legislation which apply the principle of law supremacy. (c) To indicate human rights violations of person(s) due to imprisonment without legal court decision. (d) To find measures to prevent imprisonment without legal bases.