The Commission noted that there were no instances of the prison authorities of their own volition, without the referral of another entity, referring an inmate to a JMO. It was observed that, in practice, the MOs inside the prison do not refer any inmate directly to the JMO but would refer any inmate with severe injuries to the GH as aforementioned.34 Once the doctor in the GH informs the police post inside the GH about an alleged assault, the police will obtain details of the complaint from the prisoner, issue a Medico-Legal Examination (MLEF) form, following which the JMO will be requested by the hospital to examine the prisoner. Apart from such instances, inmates will be produced before a JMO when requested by court or the Commission. Inmates may be referred to the GH in the event of serious injuries or to conduct tests that are not available at the prison facility. In one example, WCP sent an inmate with serious injuries who wished to take action against the alleged assault by the police to the NH so the police post could be notified of the assault. ARP refers inmates to the GH if the injuries sustained are serious, and the MO at PCP stated that she would record the injuries and then refer the inmate to the Kandy Hospital to obtain X–rays, and thereafter to be produced to the JMO for necessary examination. Thus, it is evident that there is no uniform procedure with regards to presenting an inmate to the JMO, since it is not stipulated by any of the three primary prison legislation. A MO at WCP stated that it would be convenient if a JMO is appointed/assigned to each prison, or at least at the larger prisons, thereby enabling the MOs to refer the prisoner to that JMO if there was evidence of ill-treatment. The JMO thus assigned to each prison could visit the prison if notification is made by the MO of a case of violence, or visit the prison regularly. This would also mean that the prisoner would not have to be sent outside prison, such as to the GH, in order for the police post to be notified and a JMO examination to be undertaken, which would require the authorization of the SP, arrangements to be made to be escorted etc. These procedures might prevent or delay the prisoner being produced before a JMO, especially given the severe staff shortages and limited transportation means available to the DOP. It should also be noted that being produced before the JMO does not guarantee that a complaint about the assault will be made to the police, as there is no police post outside JMO offices, unlike in hospitals, where the police post is informed if a person with injuries is admitted and a police complaint is registered. Further, there is no provision mandating the JMO to direct the person to the nearest police station to lodge a complaint or for the JMO to formally inform the police or the Commission about the assault. This means that cases of police violence, which are liable to be prosecuted under the Convention Against Torture Act, No. 22 of 1994, will not even be reported. However, it was revealed during a visit to ACP that the JMO at the Hambantota Hospital had informed the police post at the hospital about an alleged case of violence by a prison officer, and subsequently a police officer had visited prison to obtain a statement from the victim about the said incident. Even though there is no provision which makes it mandatory for a JMO to inform the police post, this shows the key 34 For a detailed discussion, please refer to chapter Discipline and Punishment. 45