40 ► centers for migrants: ● inadequate accommodation conditions (at the Albița Detention and Triage Center, Vaslui county, the 3 accommodation rooms had a poor hygiene, were poorly furnished with a table and two benches fixed to the floor, without a system of video surveillance and door with bars; one of the triage rooms had a large window, facing the outside of the Border Police building, covered with bars, but which could not be opened for ventilation, and no ventilation or air conditioning systems were installed in the room; the toilet was located opposite the restraint and triage room, and could be used only upon request, under the supervision of the staff); ● medical assistance was not insured 24/7. (at the Albița Detention and Triage Center, Vaslui county, there were no medical staff employed and they were no medical office, no treatment room, no isolation room for patients with infectious diseases); ● lack of interpreters (for example, the Rădăuţi Regional Center had a contract with an interpreter, but it did not cover all the necessary languages; a solution adopted by the representatives of the center was to contract an interpreter for the necessary languages through online technology; a cause of the interpreters' refusal to provide interpretation services was the insufficient remuneration - 23 lei / hour); ● some of the forms signed by the aliens, used by the administration of the center and by the nongovernmental organizations that provided services to the aliens in the center were written in Romanian (the NPM considers that it is necessary to translate all the documents to be signed by foreigners, in a language of international circulation, to be known to them, to let them know what they sign); ● the aliens did not know enough about their rights as asylum seekers during their stay in the center (the Center for Asylum Seekers Șomcuta Mare, Maramureș County). ► penitentiaries: ● overcrowding of detention rooms (for example, in Pelendava Penitentiary, some rooms provided only 2.36 m2 / detainee; in the penitentiary the occupancy rate was 119.20%); ● improper accommodation conditions (in the Găești Penitentiary, the rooms located on the ground floor of the detention units were very cold, in some rooms where there were bunk beds on two levels, the space between the two beds was very small, the furniture was insufficient and degraded, harmful insects were found; the privacy of the detainees in some toilets was not ensured; the walking yards had no cover, the personal hygiene products were of poor quality); ● deficiencies in the selection of prisoners for work (of the 343 persons deprived of liberty at the time of the visit to the Pelendava Penitentiary, 246 persons were selected for conducting lucrative activities; given that some detainees refused to participate in such activities , The NPM considers that it is necessary to carry out permanent campaigns to motivate them; also, there were no qualifications and requalifications in the existing fields of activity, depending on their options and skills); ● regarding the application of disciplinary sanctions, it was found in some cases the classification of a high number of disciplinary investigation files (in the Pelendava Penitentiary, the Disciplinary Commission closed 32 files out of the 125 that were open); ● applying the disciplinary sanction of isolation for persons with mental disorders; ● the lack of a proper space for conducting the psychotherapy, properly equipped, which will ensure the confidentiality of the professionality of the act. Regarding the transfers of detainees, the NPM found that at the level of the Găești Penitentiary there were many transfers of persons from the region of Moldova, which, considering the number of persons and the custody time (the custody periods exceeded 12-18 months) had become a rule, which significantly affected maintaining the connection with the family and the social and family reintegration. According to the response communicated by the leaders of the Ministry of Justice and the National Administration of Penitentiaries to the recommendations of the People's Advocate, since the number of detainees, grouped by their origin areas does not cover the whole territory of the country, meaning that the counties PEOPLE’S ADVOCATE ANNUAL REPORT 2019