foreseen, these rooms should be rendered unfit for the placement of inmates (e.g. by removing the locks from the doors). They should also be removed from the cell layout plan.   Specially secured cells, which are not in use due to their accoutrements, should be rendered unusable. Finally, the room should be removed from the cell layout plan. 2.5.11 Lack of lockable lockers and tables that are too big – Sonnberg correctional institution At the Sonnberg correctional institution, the commission criticised the high number of cells with multiple beds (up to five beds), some of which were fully occupied. There are no lockable lockers in these inmate cells. The inmates have no ability to withdraw and no ability to secure their private items. This favours encroachments on other people’s property. Cells for multiple inmates The Federal Ministry of Justice conceded that there are inmate cells in the old building (the historical part of the castle) that are occupied by up to five persons. The inmates housed in this area are inmates with relaxed sentences. In these residential groups the cell doors are unlocked. The criticised lack of an ability to withdraw is countered by the greater freedom of movement permitted to the inmates. Open detention does not compensate for all disadvantages It may be true that inmates generally do not possess valuable items. Any such items would be held in deposit. This fact is as little relevant as the fact that there were seldom theft reports or similar charges in the past. The interest in not having to be concerned for the whereabouts of private items is understandable, particularly units housing inmates with relaxed sentences. The argument that it is “not feasible” to make lockable boxes available for budgetary reasons, as well as for reasons of safety and order, is not convincing. Concern for private property The NPM recommends the purchase of lockable lockers, which can be opened by the prison guards with a master key. Such lockable boxes should, in particular, be provided where private property is at special risk due to a high turnover. This would also meet a demand that has repeatedly been made by the CPT (e.g. CPT/Inf (2010) 33: “Lockable space for their personal belongings”). In addition, the commission criticised the fact that the table used for “table visits” is much too large and creates a distance almost as striking as when inmates and the visitors are separated by a pane of glass. The Federal Ministry of Justice indicated that a new visitor centre 112 Table is too big