ANNUAL SPECIAL REPORT 2017 25 addressing more effectively the factors that shape inward and outward prison flows. c. – Regarding inward prison flows in particular, attention should be drawn to quantification of the current status, as, according to the figures recently published by the Ministry of Justice (see Ministry of Justice document no 1178/10.5.2017), total number of prisoners may be marginally under 10,000, but nearly half of the Detention Facilities nationally operate on more than 100% of their capacity, with the danger of overcrowding being imminent. On the other hand, extending the duration of the “decongestive” provisions of Law 4411/2016 may temporarily take some load off Detention Facilities, but at the same time it brings in the spotlight several issues, which will presumably be analysed by the Ministry, such as, for example, the severity degree of judicial decisions as regards the sentences imposed, the prospect of released prisoners returning to free social life (concerning, mostly, monitoring their needs and providing solutions for basic survival: housing, sustenance etc.). Finally, special care should be taken regarding the reintegration of prisoners of foreign nationality, who, according to the Ministry of Justice data, on 1.2.2017 amounted to 54% of the total number of prisoners. Β. - Observations on individual chapters 1. - Regarding objective 4.1 “Improvement of detention conditions – modernization of infrastructure”: a. – Whereas reference to a “National plan for prisoner distribution – determining each facility’s operation and progress” abides, of course, by an essential rule of managing detention facilities, there is no proposal of specific criteria for the implementation of this distribution, matching the distribution of prisons across the country (“which prisoners for which facilities?”). The importance of spatial closeness of the prison to the place holding prisoners’ familial and social bonds, for their successful social reintegration after release is also highlighted, as is the need for special care of imprisoned foreign nationals. b. – As far as serving in rural prisons is concerned, prisoners’ fitness for work is determined by the facility doctor, whose decision may not be challenged, while rejection results in obligatory transfer to a closed-type prison. It is therefore suggested that such rejecting diagnoses are further screened, through diagnostic examinations and a second opinion by a public hospital doctor. Certification of work experience acquired in detention is also suggested, so that it may be taken into account during the prisoners’ professional reintegration after release. c. – The issue of informing incoming prisoners should not be regarded as a separate operative objective of objective 4.1. It is advised, instead, that