administration would have collected information that would otherwise have to be clarified within the correctional institution. However, if one considers that it is the responsibility of the public prosecutor to determine who will make the assessment and at what location, this approach is not viable. The prosecutor makes dispositions regarding data When viewed in this light, the data for the assessment of an alleged mistreatment – regardless of where and by whom it was collected – may not be accepted into the Electronic Patient Record Module because it does not relate to “health care” within the meaning of Section 66 of the Penitentiary System Act. Only law enforcement authorities are entitled to dispose of the data. Therefore, the NPM had to reopen discussions on the procedure it had recommended. It should be kept in mind that the person who is examined in the individual case can be asked for permission (Section 54 (2) (3) of the Act on the Medical Profession). The Federal Ministry of Justice pointed out that effective collaboration among members of the health care professions necessitates a free exchange of information on the state of the patient’s health. When a patient is treated by a team, implied consent is considered to be the justification for the exchange of information. However, this form of consent presupposes that the patient has consented to be treated by a team. An exchange of information is useful The statements of the Federal Ministry of Justice are correct but beside the point: since the detainee himself cannot decide who will examine him/her to clear up an allegation of mistreatment, this approach goes nowhere. The remaining option is to ask the affected person for his or her explicit consent. However, the Federal Ministry of Justice also realises that the introduction of a provision that is ultimately dependent on the consent of the affected person in the individual case is of little value. The solution must be lawful and practicable The NPM brought the problem to the attention of the Federal Ministry of Justice. If after a weighing of interests, it is decided that data relating to the state of the patient’s health should be included in the Electronic Patient Record Module – irrespective of whether or not the person being examined consents – this requires a clarification of the law.  The investigation of an alleged mistreatment does not constitute a provision of “health care”. Therefore, the data must be stored separately.  If this data is to be included in the Electronic Patient Record Module, there must be a statutory basis for doing so. 99