Annual Report 2015 The RSJ finds that penitentiary regulations do not align with immigration detention with respect to the following aspects: • Powers to maintain order and security in the centre. The RSJ advises against the introduction of the punishment cell in immigration detention in any form, for instance. Not only is this inappropriate in a non-penitentiary setting, the punishment cell is also superfluous because the governor has sufficient alternative measures at his disposal. Furthermore, if a varied day programme is fully substantiated it will rarely be necessary to resort to disciplinary measures. • Future-oriented focus of the detention. In immigration detention centres, the activities performed in connection with "prospects, rehabilitation and aftercare" do not focus on rehabilitation in the context of changing behaviour but on creating opportunities for a fruitful future existence. However, there is no sign of future prospects being offered in the programme of activities: the examples of possible activities provided in the Explanatory Memorandum mostly take the form of passing time. • Transfer for management reasons. Transferring a foreign national to a penitentiary institution should be based on behaviour in the current situation rather than on documented past behaviour. • Visits. The RSJ calls for visits to be possible for the entire "operating period" of the institution rather than limiting them, as proposed, to four hours a week. At the time this annual report was drawn up, the Repatriation and Immigration Detention Bill was still being debated by Parliament, rendering a discussion of the Implementation Decree irrelevant at this time. Reviewed Perspective: A couple of thoughts about deprivation of freedom in judicial youth detention centres The Secretary of State for Security and Justice is fundamentally contemplating the future structuring of juvenile detention. This has been triggered by the declining capacity and understaffing of the judicial juvenile detention centres (JJIs) and the resulting closing of these institutions. From the developments and obstacles in the deprivation of freedom in JJIs, the RSJ concludes that the JJI system itself is problematic. Obstacles include: • Reduction in the number of institutions consistently makes it more difficult to place youths regionally, in the vicinity of their family or social network. • JJIs have difficulty in providing adequate, suitable treatment; for most youths the duration of the stay is much too short to start up an intervention. • Recidivism is very high after a stay in a JJI, which is an indication that treatment and after-care in a JJI has a limited effect. In the opinion of the RSJ, only a very different application which corresponds to developments in the community and the modern demands, can make an end to the obstacles ascertained. The RSJ is considering a system in which small-scaleness, proximity of family and school and suitable treatment, training and security are of paramount importance. Such a system will still remain part of the justice system and organisations and (local) facilities linked to the department of justice. But in this new set-up the deprivation of freedom still remains geared towards a safe society. In the interests of research it may be necessary that a preventively detained youth stays at a particular place, does not go outside and does not come into contact with other suspects. A number of youths have such serious psycho-social problems and/or problems of a psychiatric nature that a specialised, intensive treatment and a 25 Table of Cont