57 167. Amnesty International also pointed out that “[d]etainees’ access to their families and legal representatives is limited, discretionary and conditional.”157 Other nongovernmental organizations maintained that there is no right to access a lawyer before the initial interrogation158 and that the repression and harassment of lawyers who take on “sensitive” cases has increased, many of whom lose their licenses to practice law, are targeted, detained and even convicted of various crimes.159 168. Compounding the problem is the fact that the courts ignore complaints of persons on trial being tortured.160 Nongovernmental organizations observed that [p]erpetrators of torture are rarely suspended, indicted or held legally accountable.161 In practice, the punishment against perpetrators of torture is very light in comparison to the gravity of the crime. 162 They also report that police retain full control over the recordings of interrogations and in cases where torture has been used the tapes tend to go missing.163 IV. THE LAW A. Preliminary observations 169. Before going into the legal issues in this report, the Commission must begin by observing that it regards extradition as an important tool in combating impunity and as a means through which States are able to collaborate on the question of justice. The Inter-American Court, for its part, has repeatedly written about the importance of extradition,164 observing that “[i]t is in the interests of 157 Amnesty International. People's Republic of China, Briefing for the Committee against Torture in advance of their consideration of China's fourth periodic report, 3-21 November 2008, p. 4, available at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cat/docs/ngos/AI_China_41.pdf 158 UN, Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Follow-up to the recommendations made by the Special Rapporteur. China. A/HRC/13/39/Add.6, February 26, 2010, page 41, available at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/13session/A.HRC.13.39.Add%206_EFS.pdf 159 UN, Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Follow-up to the recommendations made by the Special Rapporteur. China. A/HRC/13/39/Add.6, February 26, 2010, pp. 43-44, available at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/13session/A.HRC.13.39.Add%206_EFS.pdf 160 UN, Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Follow-up to the recommendations made by the Special Rapporteur. China. A/HRC/13/39/Add.6, February 26, 2010, p. 42, available at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/13session/A.HRC.13.39.Add%206_EFS.pdf 161 UN, Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Follow-up to the recommendations made by the Special Rapporteur. China. A/HRC/13/39/Add.6, February 26, 2010, p. 39, available at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/13session/A.HRC.13.39.Add%206_EFS.pdf 162 UN, Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Follow-up to the recommendations made by the Special Rapporteur. China. A/HRC/13/39/Add.6, February 26, 2010, p. 38, available at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/13session/A.HRC.13.39.Add%206_EFS.pdf 163 UN, Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Follow-up to the recommendations made by the Special Rapporteur. China. A/HRC/13/39/Add.6, February 26, 2010, p. 41, available at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/13session/A.HRC.13.39.Add%206_EFS.pdf 164 I/A Court H.R. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, Paragraph 132; Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, paragraphs 159 and 160; Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Supervision of Compliance with the Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, July 7, 2009, Consideranda 19, and Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Supervision of Compliance with the Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. July 8, 2009, Consideranda 40 and 41.