POLICE STATIONS that the screen linked to those detention rooms fitted with CCTV cameras is located between other surveillance screens at the central communications table. The Joint Commission fears that officers will not always be aware of situations playing out on the screen. It was even reported at Heidelberg South Police Station that when few staff are on duty and because the custody suite is in the basement, instead of being checked in person the detention rooms are sometimes monitored using the CCTV cameras and intercoms. The Joint Commission pointed out that video surveillance can on no account be a substitute for regular, direct checks, and that it could at most be 38 used as an additional measure. Response: The officers will once more be instructed that they must inform detainees when CCTV surveillance is in operation. In addition, pictogrammes will be procured and those signs that have already been acquired affixed to the doors to the detention rooms. The detention rooms in both Heidelberg City Centre and Heidelberg South police stations are in the basement and need to be accessed through a number of doors. Those in police custody can only draw attention to themselves via an intercom or when checks are carried out. In view of this, the Joint Commission would like to point out that the intercom system must be checked at regular intervals to ensure that it is still functioning properly and that these checks should be recorded. The CPT had already recommended on the occasion of its visit to Heidelberg City Centre Police Station in 2005 that custody suites should be equipped 39 with mattresses. Nevertheless, none of the facilities visited had in the meantime acquired flame-resistant, washable mattresses. Response: The Ministry of the Interior has recommended that the police stations acquire suitable mattresses for detention rooms as their respective budgets permit. There is no standard practice when it comes to informing detainees about their rights. The officers at Mannheim East Police Station said that in the case of custody enforced under the Police Act they generally only informed detainees orally and that an interpreter was not always called in. The fact that information about rights has been given is only recorded in writing in the case of major incidents by the service which is then established. Mannheim City Centre Police Station, by contrast, reported that officers regularly use a form to give information about rights in writing. Information was also given by the arresting officers and an entry made in the files. Where the person concerned was handed over to a detention facility, the facility was not informed whether the person had actually been given information about rights or not, since officers could not access the entry. That is why rules on the provision of information about rights should be standardised and legal instructions handed out as soon as possible and always in writing. Information regarding the right to notify relatives, to legal advice and to see a doctor should be included. Corresponding forms should be available in the same languages as the forms required under the Code of Criminal Procedure. All those officers dealing with persons taken into custody should be able to understand the information about legal rights given to those in custody. Despite the detailed rules set out in No. 1.4 of the Police Custody Regulations, no standardised procedure was adopted regarding the custody record books kept in the police stations. At Heidelberg South Police Station the checks were not always recorded in the custody record book. In some cases entries were not made for several hours or it could only be deduced from other entries that a doctor had in the meantime visited the person in question. Further, the Joint Commission noted at both police stations in Heidelberg that doctors’ examinations were sometimes recorded in the custody record books, sometimes in the case files. In addition, there was disagreement regarding whether the fact that information about rights had been given was to be recorded on paper or electronically. In none of the police stations did the officers sign that they had carried out the checks. It should, therefore, be examined whether these shortcomings should, for example, be remedied by having supervising officers regularly check the custody record books and indicate when errors have been made. Response: The police stations’ attention will be drawn to the fact that they must uniformly apply the provisions under section 28 (2) of the Police Act and in the Police Custody Regulations, including detailed regulations regarding information about rights and custody record books. Custody records are regularly checked during shift change-overs by the supervising police office taking over. 2.1.2 – Other suggestions by the Joint Commission for improving the conditions of detention and response of the Ministry of the Interior of Baden-Württemberg Mannheim East Police Station was in a bad state of repair, i.e. both the custody suite and those areas available to the officers. In some cases these did not even meet the standards which the Joint Commission applies to detention facilities. The Joint Commission got the impression that the officers do not feel that 38 Cf. No. 4.3 of the Baden-Württemberg Police Custody Regulations 39 CPT/Inf (2007) 18, margin no. 39 72