information about the convicts’ identities and diagnoses was confidential in terms of personal data protection. Later, the doctor, with the consent of the Head of the Medical Department, allowed the Group to review medical referrals and consultations register provided that the prisoner's name would be hidden and the medical cards would be accessed only after getting informed consent from prisoners. Due to the hidden first and last names in the medical referrals and consultations register, the Special Preventive Group was unable to identify inmates or to conduct a thorough examination of the documents. In addition, given the number of prisoners and the time allotted for the monitoring, obtaining informed consent from each prisoner significantly hampered the monitoring process. In addition to the above-mentioned obstacle, the Deputy Director of the facility also refused members of the Special Preventive Group to provide information about isolated prisoners without their consent. The Deputy Director offered assistance to the Special Preventive Group in obtaining consent from prisoners, and finally, the Special Preventive Group was provided information only about 18 out of the 27 isolated prisoners, who, according to the Deputy Director, agreed to provide information to the Group. Due to this, the Special Preventive Group was deprived of the opportunity to fully examine the duration of the isolation measure used towards all 27 inmates. In addition, it should be noted that members of the Special Preventive Group, without being provided with relevant legal justification by the administration, were refused to get copies of documentation of disciplinary sanctions and de-escalation registers where no information would be shaded (hidden). Moreover, the actions of the administration were contradictory. For example, members of the Special Preventive Group were refused to get the above-mentioned copies, whereas they did not encounter a problem with on-site data processing. In addition, the Special Preventive Group has not encountered any problem in getting the copies of information about the detainees against whom the prison staff had used handcuffs. The most important component of the mandate and methodology of the Special Preventive Group is to process voluminous information obtained from various documents in accordance with the principle of confidentiality. It is unfortunate that the above was not the first case when members of the Special Preventive Group encountered obstacles in accessing special categories of personal data.3 It should be noted that Article 20 (b) of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment explicitly obliges States Parties to grant national 3 Obstacles in terms of accessing special categories of personal data faced by the National Preventive Mechanism are also discussed in the 2018 Report of the National Preventive Mechanism (p. 6-7). In particular, on December 19-21, 2018, during the monitoring of Penitentiary Establishment No. 17, the chief doctor of the facility refused the members of the Special Preventive Group to check the register of injuries of the untried/convicted persons on the motive that information about the identity of the prisoner and injuries to his body was confidential and requested the written consent of prisoners. 7