oral fluids is a less invasive measure, which also interferes less on the privacy of the affected person, the NPM advocated a nationwide shift from urine tests to saliva tests. The Federal Ministry of Justice is generally in agreement that taking saliva with a pad is not an encroachment on privacy. Moreover, the test can be administered by any prison employee regardless of the gender of the person being tested. Despite this advantage, a closely regulated coexistence of both testing procedures is favoured in everyday prison life. Coexistence of both testing procedures in everyday prison life With respect to this strategy, the NPM believes that the implementation of toxicological analyses of saliva is to be preferred from a human rights perspective. However, thus far, the results have not been comparable in terms of validity and specificity with the – also forensically established – results of urine toxicology. Nevertheless, it is requested that the process of providing a urine sample should generally be monitored through the use of mirrors. In the view of the Federal Ministry of Justice, the matter of the detection periods of the substances being tested for cannot be omitted from the perspective of practicability or the degree of interference of the “saliva analysis” model. In this regard, reference is made to the statement of the institute involved with conducting the tests (www.drogentestwien.at), i.e. “with the exception of cannabis, the detection periods in saliva are on average about 30% shorter than in urine. The detection period of cannabis in saliva ranges from one to three days after onetime or regular consumption. There is still insufficient data regarding the detection period after chronic consumption. However, the assumption is that the detection period is no longer than one week.” Detection period of substances In contrast, cannabis can be detected in urine samples for several weeks to three months. For this reason, the Federal Ministry of Justice considers testing by the two different test methods – whose areas of use may be supplemented – to be necessary in terms of (cost-) efficient use. It should not be ignored that saliva samples have not proven to be absolutely secure against manipulation, since the quantity of saliva on the pad can be influenced. In addition, the Federal Ministry of Justice noted that the results of urine testing using a strip only raise a qualified suspicion, and the affected person is free to demand a gas chromatographic review. In view of the not only positive results of the saliva analysis model further investigation has been promised within the framework of a comprehensive, unbiased examination of all aspects (corrections practice, legal, economic and technical/toxicological). Ministry’s evaluation not yet completed The NPM awaits the results of this investigation and has noted that the Federal Ministry of Justice will send a report in this regard. It is viewed positively that – in conformity with the decree of the prison administration, which took effect at the beginning of March 2015 – an IT programme will be used, which selects detainees who will be subjected to random testing from the entirety of the detainees in a Use of random testing programme 96