122 10. Dialogue on the measures taken by the NPM in the case of six persons and the suspension of the application of such drugs was in progress in the case of another five residents. We noticed during the first visit that the majority of the residents had taken their medication without informed consent. At the time of the follow-up visit, many residents had no information on their own condition or the medication that they took. Due to all the above, I repeatedly asked the head of the Institution to ensure that the residents are provided clear information on their conditions and medications, including the explanation for and consent to taking contraceptive pills. I was informed by the head of the Institution that the general practitioner and the psychiatrist had explained to the residents what medication they were taking for what, including the consent to taking contraceptive pills. In the Social Institution, it was only in the case of one resident that regular physical restrictive measures had to be taken. This resident (one arm and one leg) was tied to the bed each night because he demonstrated a threatening behaviour to his peers and the staff members. I asked the head of the Institution to consider the option of isolation to replace tying down this resident for the night. I was informed by the head of the Institution that a room suitable for isolation had been made available. In my response, I called the attention of the head of the Institution to that, in addition to ensuring a room suitable for isolation, it should be endeavoured to that isolation rather than tying down is applied, if this method is adequate. The rules for ordering and applying restrictive measures were not fully compliant with the relevant statutory provisions. In my recommendation, I asked the head of the Social Institution to take care of the revision of the rules of procedure concerning restrictive measures in order to establish harmony with the laws. The head of the Social Institution promised to do so. The psychologist of the visiting delegation established that the placement of residents qualified as “agitated” in a common room increased tension because the circular process leading to tension was not stopped in this way. The side effects of the tranquillisers taken by the residents may have deteriorated their cognitive abilities and increased their communication difficulties. I proposed that the “agitated” residents, who receive ad hoc medication, should not be placed in common rooms by the Social Institution. The head of the Social Institution promised to keep this perspective in mind, however, the affected residents had so far protested against the attempts made at separated placement. I accepted the response. The members of the visiting delegation noticed that the majority of the residents had bad teeth. In the case of any problems, the residents were sent to an oral surgeon rather than to a dentist where, in most cases, their teeth were extracted, rather than their receiving conservation treatment aimed at keeping the teeth. I asked the head of the Social Institution to take action