examine how placement in the speciallysecured cell can be avoided by taking proactive measures. The disciplinary detention cells are also The hygiene and “safety” related conditions extremely un-cared-for and dirty. which were the subject of the complaint have now been remedied. The Commission complained about the The improvement of the level of equipment sparse equipment and the extreme dirti- was said to be being continually pursued as ness of the visiting rooms in the specialist permitted by the budget. drug area and of the therapy rooms in the social therapy department. The same applies to the rooms of the admissions area (where even the electrical installations were not properly secure). The available common showers do not have partitions or other precautions maintaining privacy. That this circumstance is also regarded by the inmates as a disturbance is shown by the fact that they shower with clothes on (i.e. in their underwear or swimming trunks). It is recommended to convert the common showers in such a way as to do adequate justice to the protection of inmates’ privacy (cf. also p. 22). With regard to the installation of devices in the sanitary facilities to protect inmates’ privacy, the Senate Administration stated that protection against attacks among the inmates took on particular significance in this area. Construction changes restricting the view of these premises were said to run counter to this concern. Many windows in the criminal detention wings are fitted with additional sight guards which prevent both daylight and fresh air from entering. The Commission of the Länder would like to point out that, in accordance with international standards, adequate daylight and natural ventilation must be guaranteed in each cell.20 The CPT has also already pointed out the negative impact of sight guards on lighting and the airing of the cells, including in youth prisons.21 The (partial) removal of front mesh wires could not be complied with; these were said to not be “sight guards”, but rather intended to prevent objects (drugs, mobile telephones, etc.) being pulled into the cells by inmates using angling devices. Members of the representation of the inmates pointed out that officers sometimes do not exercise sufficient confidentiality in dealing with indications of repression and mistreatment by co-inmates. For instance, the risk is said to exist that the re- As every other closed prison in the Land Berlin, Berlin youth prison was said to also have a security concept which was updated in concurrence with the Senate Administration. The currently-applicable concept, dated 28 March 2011, provides for a coordinated 20 No. 11 a of the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners; No. 18.2 a of the Council of Europe’s European Prison Rules. 21 cf. CPT report on the visit to Germany in 2005, CPT/Inf (2007) 18, Nos. 15 et seqq. (with regard to Weimar/Ichtershausen youth prison and Hamlyn youth facility). 43