SPOTLIGHT ON CUSTODY PENDING DEPORTATION late November 2013, which now has sole responsibility for enforcing the measure. stop offering recreational activities because not enough people take advantage of them. Specialist services such as social workers are often only available on call, since it does not make sense to hire them on a permanent contract when the facility only caters for a few detainees awaiting deportation. 1.2 – DROP IN THE NUMBER OF CUSTODY PENDING DEPORTATION ORDERS AND CONSEQUENCES FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF CUSTODY PENDING DEPORTATION IN PRISONS 1.3 – THE ADVANTAGES OF SPECIALISED DETENTION FACILITIES However, the majority of the Länder continue to execute custody pending deportation in prison accommodation and in some cases in police stations or special police detention facilities. Enforcing custody pending deportation in prisons has its advantages, since detainees awaiting deportation can, for example, then make use of the good infrastructure available there. For instance, the specialist services (e.g. doctors and psychologists) are on hand, often there is also a good range of recreational and purposeful activities available. Placing those in custody pending deportation in a prison often also means that they are closer to their relatives. However, such detention together with the drop in the number of custody pending deportation orders creates new problems. For instance, the Joint Commission found that in several facilities there was only one woman in custody pending deportation and that she was consequently being detained alone in that section of the facility. Even if this is an unintentional consequence, it is equivalent to solitary confinement. In addition, these women’s situation is often exacerbated because they cannot communicate with staff in the facility on account of language problems, which means they have no-one at all to talk to. Some Länder have signed mutual cooperation agreements regarding female detainees awaiting deportation. For example, the facility enforcing custody pending deportation in Eisenhüttenstadt in Brandenburg also takes in females awaiting deportation from Schleswig-Holstein and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. The aforementioned problem of isolation can, nevertheless, still arise in these facilities. Further, numerous other problems arise on account of the often limited number of people held in custody pending deportation. In many cases the lack of a common language makes it impossible for detainees to communicate with each other. That also makes it difficult for them to engage in recreational activities together and take-up of the offers available is thus very low. Communication with members of staff is also difficult if not impossible on account of language barriers, since staff often do not speak any of the detainees’ languages. This, in turn, has an impact on motivation amongst staff, and they Where separate facilities are available to enforce custody pending deportation, they can take account of the specific situation which detainees awaiting deportation find themselves in. It is of no consequence whether these facilities are subject to the oversight of the department of the interior or of the department of justice. In specialised facilities detainees awaiting deportation are not subject to the restrictions and security measures specific to the penal system to the same degree as sentenced prisoners and remand prisoners, such as lock-in and unlocking times, limited yard exercise time, limited visiting times, monitoring of post and a mobile phone ban. In addition, they can be provided with more targeted support on account of staff with the relevant linguistic skills being specially selected and trained in this area. Detainees awaiting deportation can be offered more wide-ranging recreational and purposeful activities. Establishing a small number of specialised centres means that a larger number of detainees awaiting deportation can be accommodated who speak the same language and have the same cultural background. This may more effectively counteract the isolation and withdrawal which has been observed in individual detainees. Weighing up all the arguments, the Joint Commission therefore recommends creating specialised facilities for enforcing custody pending deportation which meet the specific requirements of this form of detention. Rhineland-Palatinate, Brandenburg and Berlin already have such specialised facilities. Since November 2013 Bavaria has been provisionally enforcing custody pending deportation in a central facility until the European Court of Justice issues its ruling. 1.4 – BEST-PRACTICE EXAMPLES During its visits the Joint Commission encountered numerous successful and best-practice examples in regard to the enforcement of custody pending deportation. These will be described in summary in the following. Special mention should be made of the general conditions of detention in Ingelheim Detention Centre for Persons Required to Leave the Country. 22