Places visited by the National Preventive Mechanism in 2011 choosing recorded monitoring videos, the NPM found that such practices were employed (Tarnów, Grudziądz and Gorzów Wielkopolski). Article 10 of the Ordinance of the Minister of Health of 10 February 4 on the methods of escorting, accepting and discharging inebriated individuals and on organization of detoxification centres and other establishments created or indicated by a local government unit stipulates210 reads: “Persons admitted to sobering stations or similar establishment may be given a set of substitute clothes for the duration of their stay”. This does not mean, however, that such person is obliged to accept and change into the said clothes. This provision does not form a legal basis for forcing a person who refuses to change his/her clothes to do so. Using force against a human being only to make him/her change into substitute clothing violates his/her rights and personal dignity. In such cases, the European Court of Human Rights reminds that – similarly to the provisions applicable in the case of strip searches – the order to undress should be justified by the necessity to ensure safety211. In its judgment, the Court stated that whilst strip searches may be necessary on occasion to ensure prison security or prevent disorder or crime, they must be conducted in an appropriate manner and must be justified. They should be carried out in an appropriate manner with due respect for human dignity and for a legitimate purpose (Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, § 166-176, ECHR 2003-XII (extracts); Wainwright v. the United Kingdom, no. 12350/04, § 42, ECHR 2006-...). Even single instances of strip-searching have been found to amount to degrading treatment in view of the manner in which the strip search was carried out, the possibility that its aim was to humiliate and debase and the lack of justification (see Valašinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 117, ECHR 2001-VIII). The Court has also held that where an order to undress with a view to a search had no established connection with the preservation of security and prevention of crime or disorder, Article 3 may be engaged (Wainwright, cited above, § 42; Wieser v. Austria, no. 2293/03, § 40, 22 February 2007 where the applicant was undressed by police officers). In their written responses to the NPM’s recommendations, persons managing the visited establishments declared to abandon the practice of obligatory stripping of patients in cases which are not justified by reasons of security or by the requirement to perform a medical check on an admitted person. During their visit to a sobering-up station in Zabrze, the NPM’s representatives were informed by one of the patients that when he asked for a drink to quench his thirst, he was only given a chance to drink tap water when visiting the bathroom. Having regard to § 20(2) of the Ordinance, which stipulates that persons detained in sobering-up stations are entitled to receive non-alcoholic drinks in disposable glasses, the Mechanism views this practice in a negative light. In response to the NPM’s recommendations in this case, the 210 211  Dz.U. of 2004 No 20, item 192, as amended.  See: Final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Wiktorko v. Poland (application no. 141612/02). 117