This treatment furthermore violates the fire which the Land Government could not influprotection regulations – where corridors are ence. Therapeutic and security reasons to be kept free. were also said to necessitate double occupancy in individual cases. The funding institution had reported as per 24 October 2011 that the administration had placed the cupboards in other functional rooms, such as day rooms. The Commission spoke with a patient in the According to a report from the funding instireception ward who stated that he had been tution of 24 October 2011, this finding is a placed there for ten days and that he had misunderstanding. The Commission spoke been locked in his room apart from breakfast with a patient in Building 16 who had only and twice-daily outdoor exercise. The pa- been held in the clinic for ten days. He retient’s statement was confirmed by the staff ported that he had been “locked up for ten of the reception wing. The staff furthermore days”. This statement however referred to indicated that no conduct had been ob- his temporary accommodation in accordance served on the part of the patient that caused with section 126a of the Code of Criminal a risk to third parties and necessitated a dai- Procedure, and not to his being locked up in ly lockup. a room or wing. The average duration of stay of the patients in the reception wing is two to three months. According to information from the head of the clinic, because of the shortage of single rooms in the treatment wings, a rapid transfer to such rooms is not possible. The reception wing has no common rooms. The patients are largely locked in their rooms during the day. This wastes valuable time which could be used for treatment. The circumstances established by the Commission were largely confirmed by the Ministry. In the view of the supervisory authority, it is true that the rooms of the reception station are not ideally suited to the therapy that should be provided in such temporary accommodation. It also shares the Commission’s criticism of the inadequate long-term care staffing of the ward, and will take action to force the funding institution to apply the appropriate means. On 24 August 2011, the Commission was made aware of a patient who had been held in the reception wing for more than two-anda-half years. It requests a statement as to whether the information provided by the patient is correct. According to the head of the clinic, there is a shortage of staff posts in the therapeutic and long-term care area. The ratio between therapists and patients is said to be roughly 1:14. This shortfall leads to a reduced range of therapies on offer, and hence – in addition to the reservations already mentioned above – also to patients possibly being held there for an unnecessarily prolonged period. The Ministry stated that the patient had indeed been in the reception department for a prolonged period, namely roughly two years. This was largely because of the patient’s personality structure. The information provided by the head of the clinic is said not to be comprehensible for the Land Government. From the “as is” occupancy reported by the funding institution as per 1 July 2011, a ratio of 1:12 emerged for the medical and psychological service and one of 1:11 including the pedagogical service (with 300 in-patients). The Land was aware that the staffing of the placement of 54