Places visited by the National Preventive Mechanism in 2011 private and by mail. Contrary to the literal wording of Article 215 of the Executive Penal Code, the provision gives the person detained on remand the right to contact the persons listed above also by telephone or by other available means of conveying information. It should be clarified here that correspondence – within the meaning of Article 8(1) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950 – is represented by various means of communication, including a telephone conversation66. The ban on the use of telephones and other wired and unwired means of communication, resulting from the content of Article 217c of the Executive Penal Code, does not apply to contacts of a detainee with persons listed in Article 215 of the Executive Penal Code. The position presented above was shared by the Minister of Justice (letter of 28 June 2010) and by the Criminal Law Codification Committee operating in the Ministry of Justice; in the opinion of the latter, neither judicial authorities nor prison service are entitled to introduce any limitations in this area. It should be added that also CPT, during its fourth periodic visit to Poland in 2009, questioned the legal background of the total ban on telephone calls by persons detained on remand67. Moreover, this total ban is contrary to Rules 95.3, 98.2 and 99 of the European Prison Rules68. In the Pre-Trial Detention Centre in Olsztyn, the conditions for visits paid to persons detained on demand for whom the competent authority did not limit the direct contact with visitors during the visits, failed to guarantee that the condition of direct contact would be satisfied. Even though there was no glass pane between the parties, they were separated by rather wide ledges which significantly impaired direct contact during the visit. The height at which the ledges were located was an additional impediment. For a person seated in a wheelchair who would like to come to visit, it would be difficult to even see the detained person, and direct contact would simply be impossible. Therefore, the Mechanism recommended a change in the conditions of visits with persons detained on remand, to assure that direct contact would be possible. The directors of the visited establishments notified the Mechanism that until the binding legal provisions are changed, they would not permit persons detained on remand to have telephone conversations, including with their defence counsels or representatives (Olsztyn Pre-Trial Detention Centre, Wadowice Prison, Giżycko Pre-Trial Detention Centre, Grójec Pre-Trial Detention Centre, Nowogard Prison). The directors also stated that it would be possible to provide a separate room for visits without a supervisor, granted as a reward, only if adequate financial resources are secured (Wadowice Prison, Uherce Mineralne Prison), if temporarily populated rooms are returned to their original functions (Trzebinia Prison, Grójec Pre-Trial Detention Centre), or when the adaptation works have been completed (Sieradz Prison, Olsztyn Pre-Trial Detention Centre). In the opinion of 66 67 68  See: Zbigniew Hołda, in: Kodeks karny wykonawczy – Komentarz, Arche Gdańsk 2007.  See: point 138 of CPT Report on the visit to Poland in 2009 (CPT/Inf (2011)20).  Recommendation Rec(2006)2 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on the European Prison Rules. 45