The CCTV monitoring of individuals constitutes an interference with their right to informational self-determination. CCTV monitoring should only be used in individual cases where it is absolutely necessary. The reasons for the use of CCTV monitoring should be documented. Furthermore, it must be possible for the person concerned to discern whether the camera is running. 2.2.13 – Conditions of detention and security measures According to the facility’s management, extensive structural security measures were implemented at the Darmstadt facility for custody awaiting deportation when the facility opened. These included bars, fences, barbed wire and cameras. In some cases, the connecting pathways between individual buildings and the outdoor area in front of the common room were completely barred up on all sides and from above. As a result, these areas resembled a cage. 2.2.11 – Psychological and psychiatric care The facilities for custody awaiting deportation in Darmstadt and Büren did not provide any psychological or psychiatric care within the facility itself. Detainees awaiting deportation were held in several units without common rooms. The only available common room was unlocked for only an hour each day. Outdoor exercise took place for an hour each day in a small, highly secure outdoor area. Apart from these two hours, the detainees were unable to leave their units. The only available facilities to keep them occupied were the TVs in the custody cells. From conversations with multiple detainees, it became clear just how difficult it was for them to wait around in their cells with nothing to do. In cases where custody pending deportation was executed on a wing of Frankfurt I Prison, the detainees awaiting deportation were permitted to leave their cells at any time of day. Furthermore, they had access to a wide range of facilities with which to keep themselves occupied. As detainees awaiting deportation have frequently undergone traumatic experiences while fleeing their country of origin and their deportation back there is accompanied by feelings of fear and anxiety, the need for psychological or psychiatric care in such facilities is generally high. It must be ensured that psychological or psychiatric care is provided where there is evidence of a psychological disorder. 2.2.12 – Dealing with Gefährder At the time of the visit to UfA Büren, two individuals classed as Gefährder (i.e. persons posing a threat to public safety) were being held in solitary confinement. This involved restrictions in terms of visitation, correspondence, telephone calls and media usage, as well as the confiscation of property. As justification for the execution of solitary confinement, the staff merely cited the individuals’ status as Gefährder. Pursuant to section 2 of the Hesse Act on the Execution of Measures serving the Deprivation of Liberty under the Laws pertaining to Foreigners, detainees may only be subjected to such restrictions which serve the purpose of the measure involving deprivation of liberty or which prevent a concrete threat to security or order in a facility. The execution of custody pending deportation should, as a matter of principle, differ significantly from a prison sentence in terms of detention conditions, the restrictions of liberty that are specific to a prison 61 sentence, and security measures. The detention conditions in Darmstadt did not comply with this principle. In the documents sent to the National Agency, a risk of flight and Gefährder status were the reasons provided for these far-reaching measures. Gefährder status does not constitute a legally established and therefore suitable justification for the use of a special security measure, particularly solitary confinement. The necessity and intensity of any interference with basic rights should always be decided on a caseby-case basis and documented accordingly. 61 CJEU, judgment of 17/07/2014, file no.: C-473/13 and C514/13 58