By comparison, in 2014 a total of 853 urine samples were subjected to a confirming analysis. Of these, 162 samples, i.e. 19%, showed a creatinine value that was too low – e.g. resulting from dilution –and therefore could no longer be definitively interpreted. Based on these analyses, saliva tests – unlike urine tests – have different detection periods for certain substances. For example, the time period during which lipophilic substances, such as cannabis and benzodiazepine, are detectable is 6 to 30 days with urine but only 1 to 3 days with saliva. This – chemical – effect for the first time allows the tester to distinguish between recent consumption of these substances and consumption at a time farther in the past. Analysis Whereas giving a urine sample while under observation results in a potential invasion of privacy per se, basic rights are not affected by saliva testing. Not only can the samples be taken with a simple pad, but they can be taken by any prison employee regardless of the gender of the person to be tested and there is no waiting time between drinking a liquid and urinating which had to be included in the calculation. Practicability In the opinion of the Federal Ministry of Justice, there are disadvantages as well as advantages in this regard: saliva testing, which costs about EUR 35 per test, is significantly more expensive than urine testing at about EUR 3.80 per test (for each parameter to be tested). Analysis results would often be electronically transmitted to the correctional institutions on the day the sample was given, but no later than the following day (pick-up of the test strips was agreed upon individually by the laboratory and the correctional institution). Unlike urine tests, the results of saliva tests are not determined immediately afterwards. Costs and validity However, it must be conceded that the usual urine tests have only been “quick tests” so far, which can weaken or strengthen a suspicion or provide the basis for a suspicion. Only GC/MS analysis (gas chromatographic mass spectrometry) of the urine medium can provide proof of the consumption of narcotics. Urine tests provide no proof According to the Federal Ministry of Justice, the high cost and the fact that the testing results are not immediately available caused the Vienna-Favoriten correctional institution to leave the pilot project, especially since this correctional institution, as a therapy facility, has a high frequency of testing. Nevertheless, the prison administration continues to have a positive attitude toward the introduction of saliva tests Austria-wide based on the results of the pilot project. However, the introduction of saliva tests will not result in the complete discontinuance of urine tests, especially since the immediate availability of results will continue to be indispensable to the everyday management of the prison – e.g. for random testing after inmates 98 Federal Ministry of Justice only wishes to supplement, not to replace