the Act permits, with the inmates’ consent, to also accommodate them together during the rest period if no negative influence is to be feared. The draft Bill of the Land Government (Landtag printed paper [LT-Drs] 15/8101 p. 55) states on this provision amongst other things that the constitutionally-required protection of privacy could also be maintained with joint accommodation and should be taken into account when planning the detention regime and in the size and design of the cells. The administrative provision on Art. 20 of the Bavarian Prison Act accordingly only permits the joint accommodation of two inmates in a single cell in exceptional cases. The double occupancy that is systematically practiced in Bernau is not exceptional in this sense. The cells also do not comply with the increased requirements made of cells in which inmates may be regularly accommodated jointly. In accordance with Art. 170 para. 2 of the Bavarian Prison Act, cells for accommodation during the rest and leisure period must have sufficient air, amongst other things. The reasoning for the statute on this provision indicates that details are to be regulated by an administrative provision. In accordance with para. 1 of the administrative provision which was issued on this matter, single cells are to be planned such that they have a floor area of at least 9 m², including the toilet cubicle. These requirements are not met by the respective cells in Bernau, even when used as single cells. According to the evaluation of the administrative provision, which completes the statutory measure, multiple occupancy is therefore not possible. A floor area of at least 6 to 7 m² per accommodated inmate is required as a standard of multiple occupancy in most cases in Germany (cf. for instance the documentation in the Order of the Federal Constitutional Court of 13 November 2007, 2 BvR 2201/05, JURIS marginal no. 16). The surface area is therefore well below that required in the case of the multiple occupancy of single cells in Bernau. Moreover, multiple occupancy of these single cells may also violate inmates’ human dignity. The cells are too small for multiple occupancy, even if the inmates are not additionally burdened by inadequately partitioned toilets. The Federal Constitutional Court derives from Art. 1 para. 1 of the Basic Law, in conjunction with the principle of the social welfare state, the obligation incumbent on the State to also ensure a minimum livelihood which constitutes a dignified existence in prisons. It primarily considers the floor area per inmate and the situation of the sanitary facilities, namely the partitioning and ventilation of the toilet, to constitute factors which indicate a violation of human dignity resulting from spatial detention conditions. The shortening of the daily lock-up period can be considered as a relaxation of detention (Order of 22 February 2011, 1 BvR 409/09, JURIS marginal nos. 29 et seqq.). Above all to date, non-divided sanitary facilities have led to the accusation of undignified imprisonment. As far as is known, the Federal Constitutional Court has not so far ruled on cases in which only the small floor area was complained of. However, the reasoning of the Court also shows that a lower limit is to be adhered to in this regard notwithstanding other additional factors. A standard for this lower limit is found in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights regarding Art. 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This case-law is orientated towards the guidelines of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), which has favoured 4 m² per inmate in a prison cell as a suitable guideline. You have already referred to the judgment of 12 July 2007 in the case of Testa vs. Croatia (EuGRZ 2008, 21, 23). This standard, which also applies to countries with completely different social circumstances, would be just about adhered to if the separate toilet area was added. 21