34 Rooms within police custody facilities should be large enough, to have a minimum of 6, recommended 7 square meters if intended to accommodate one person only or at least 4 square meters per person if ment to accommodate more persons; distance between the walls of the room should be at least 2 meters, height from the foloor to the ceiling at least 2.5 meters, and if they are smaller size they may be used only for stays no longer than a few hours, they must be clean, dry, and ventilated, there must be a flow of fresh air with both natural and artificial light, heated according to climatic conditions, equipped with a bed, a matress and a sufficient number of blankets; there should be an alarm button to enable contact with guards and video /audio surveillance control which does not violate the privacy, there should be no elements in the normal course of events that may be used for self-harm; detainees should be granted unlimited access of drinking water as well as running water necessary for maintenance of hygiene at all times, toiletries and sanitary ware; it is also necessary to provide space for spending time in the fresh air.75 The position of certain individuals deprived of liberty by the police on suspicion of having committed a criminal offense has been further exacerbated by the fact that they have been denoted guilty publicly and beforehand, albeit the court proceedings to determine their criminal responsibility at the time have not even started. Several instances were noted where the presumption of innocence of PDLs by the police is being violated publicly, using media so that it creates the impression of being guilty for the offense they were charged with, whereas not only that their guilt has not been determined by the final judgment, but they have not even been brought before the Court. The above mentioned may also represent a certain pressure on the judge before whom the person deprived of liberty will soon be brought for a possible decision ordering custody measures, especially when such claim is being imposed by a senior state official through the media. There was no evidence of torture in police conduct in terms of being organized, encouraged or supported by the system, however individual instances of ill-treatment were identified. It was affirmed that the rights to physical and mental integrity of a PDLs were violated for the reason that during his admission and detention in the police station he was subjected to torture. The above case is determined primarily on the basis of existing do75 ibid