prisoners’ privacy. These included the use of mouth swabs or a marker system. With these procedures, it is no longer necessary to observe the passing of the urine sample. In order to respect human dignity, at least one alternative method of drug testing should be available so that prisoners can choose the method they find to be the least intrusive. have a court review the permissibility of the 90 restraint procedure. Furthermore, the measure should be professionally discussed with the person concerned afterwards, as this can lead to a reduction in the frequency and duration of 91 measures involving deprivation of liberty. 5.2.6 – Cell size Over-occupancy was frequently observed at Leipzig Prison. Single-occupancy cells, for example, were often occupied by two people. Many of these cells had less than 10 square metres of floor space, excluding the sanitary area. Remand detainees were generally allocated three hours of out-of-cell time, while sentenced prisoners were permitted to leave their cells for four hours. 5.2.5 – Physical restraint The documentation on the application of 85 physical restraint at Leipzig Prison revealed that the frequency of physical restraint and the length of time for which it was applied were very high compared to other prisons and psychiatric clinics. Furthermore, the reasons for the doctor’s decision to order physical restraint were not comprehensible in some cases. On the form for documenting the use of physical restraints, it was neither necessary to specify the less severe measures which had already been tried nor the reason why these measures were unsuccessful. The combination of undersized cells and limited out-of-cell time leads to restrictive living conditions that interfere with the human dignity of the persons concerned. From the point of view of the National Agency, in order for detention conditions to be humane, a singleoccupancy cell must have a floor space of at least six square metres, excluding the sanitary area. In cases where the sanitary area is not partitioned, one further square metre should be added for that area, giving a total floor space of at least seven square metres. For multiple-occupancy, a further four square metres of floor space must be added to this figure for each additional person, excluding the sanitary area. According to the Federal Constitutional Court’s judgment of 24 July 2018, a physical restraint constitutes a serious interference with a person’s freedom (Article 2 (2) sentence 2 in conjunction with Article 104 of the Basic Law) 86 and presents a serious risk of injury. Thus, any restrictions to this right may only take place on the basis of a formal law that is sufficiently precise and takes sufficient account of the 87 principle of proportionality. Physical restraint 88 may only be applied as a measure of last resort. 5.2.7 – Staff Every effort should be taken to reduce the frequency and duration of physical restraints. The physical restraint should be applied for the shortest possible period of time. On the documentation form for physical restraints, it should be stated which other measures have already been tried and why these failed. The National Agency was informed of a strained staffing situation at Leipzig Prison. According to prison staff, this meant that almost nobody attended further training courses. A number of interviewees also informed the National Agency that the staffing situation had resulted in an excessive workload and tensions among staff. For any physical restraint applied for more than just a short period of time, a court decision 89 is required. The person concerned should be informed after the measure of the possibility to 90 Ibid., margin no. 85 DGPPN [German Society for Psychiatry and Psychotherapy] (2018): S3-Leitlinie “Verhinderung von Zwang: Prävention und Therapie aggressiven Verhaltens bei Erwachsenen.” URL: https://www.dgppn.de/_Resources/Persistent/154528053e2d1 464d9788c0b2d298ee4a9d1cca3/S3%20LL%20Verhinderung %20von%20Zwang%20LANG%2BLITERATUR%20FIN AL%2010.9.2018.pdf (last retrieved on 27/02/2019) 91 85 See part III. 2.5 – “Physical restraint”. Federal Constitutional Court, judgment of 24 July 2018, file no.: 2 BvR 309/15, 2 BvR 502/16, margin no. 83 87 Ibid., margin no. 76 et seq. 88 Ibid., margin no. 80 89 Ibid., margin no. 69 86 69