- the need for a serious presumption backed up by evidence that an offence has been or is being committed or of danger based on suspicions that can be expressed objectively (for example the sharp increase in the number of banned or dangerous substances or objects discovered); - the limitation of the measure in space and time, made necessary by the principle of proportionality; it must be stressed in this regard that the examples provided never extend for more than a day; - the requirement for a justified, detailed report to be submitted to the relevant competent Public Prosecutor and prison administration department. Although it reproaches the delay in this circular's adoption, which allowed unfounded rumours to circulate in prisons, the CGLPL considers that the restrictions defined by this text do, in theory, enable the unfortunate consequences of these to be limited. It does, however, stress the need, on the one hand, to make sure that the 2009 provisions are fully adopted by the prison administration in terms of the grounds for individual search decisions and conditions in which thes e are carried out, since the evidence on the ground points to this process not yet being complete, and on the other, to ensure the new provisions are interpreted with the utmost stringency. The exceptional nature of full-body searches must be guaranteed by providing effective training and supervision for all prison administration staff as regards complying with the grounds and conditions for carrying out searches. Moreover, it is necessary to ensure the strict interpretation of Article 57, Paragraph 2, of the Prison Law through tight scrutiny by the supervisory authorities, administrative inspectorates and judicial authorities. 1.4 Violence seems to be on the rise in prisons, but screening is inadequate in this regard. The visits that the CGLPL conducted in prisons in 2016 also threw up an increase in violent phenomena which seem to stem from both the problem of prison overcrowding and insufficient supervision. In three of the prisons it visited, the CGLPL observed almost systematic behaviour on the part of prisoners intent on trying to protect themselves by inappropriate means: refusal to participate in walks or activities, requests to be placed in solitary confinement, and even deliberate misbehaviour so as to be placed in the disciplinary wing. Sometimes, some prisoners are so afraid that they even refuse to receive visits from their family to shield them from outside pressure. In one institution which still had dormitories, the Management reported violence being perpetrated there "behind the scenes". Violence between prisoners is also mentioned in the letter which the CGLPL received. These accounts present an opportunity to question the prisons about the measures taken to maintain internal law and order, guarantee the physical safety of the people entrusted to t he prison administration or protect the individual safety of a particular person – for example by taking disciplinary action against his or her attacker, moving victims to different cells or stepping up surveillance of movements. There are also allegations of violence committed by warders in the letter that the CGLPL received. In most cases, this was a matter of criticising the excessive or abusive nature of such professional practices as searches or immediate placement in the disciplinary wing – referred to as a "preventive measure". In some cases, the health blocks issued medical certificates which, whilst not providing hard evidence of the abuse allegations, nevertheless attest to the marks left by the use of force: haematomas, skin lesions or more. In other cases, the letter received spoke of violence stemming from malicious acts committed by prisoners against other prisoners – which persist or escalate because of an air of 21