Annual Report 2015 explained by historical reasons of shortfall in capacity, is currently no longer needed, nor justified. In addition, the RSJ recommends that it be investigated whether a longstay facility can be set up in a second clinic and to: • reinforce the practice of temporary transfer ("time-out"), pursuant to Section 13 of the Hospital Orders (Care) Act if it proves to be impossible to arrive at an alternative means to obtain the required second opinion; • introduce an objection and appeal procedure with respect to the internal transfer of TBS longstay patients. In his response to this advice, the State Secretary of Security and Justice has stated that the small - and decreasing - number of longstay patients does not justify the establishment of a second location. He will, however, make a start with decreasing the longstay capacity at PI Vught, except for the Specialised Intensive Care Unit. As this clinic will keep its monopoly position, it is requested to implement the recommendations proposed by the RSJ to improve the (legal) position of those under a hospital order. In the short term, a greater focus will be provided to the socalled "time-out placements" at other clinics. The State Secretary's response does not address the recommendation to introduce an objection procedure for internal transfers. Judgment on appeal In addition to giving advice, the RSJ is also charged with administering justice. This duty is performed by the appeal committees within the RSJ. These appeal committees, acting as a court of appeal, review judgments on persons being sentenced to a term in prison or a measure involving the deprivation of freedom. The RSJ in 2015 received a notice of appeal relevant to the objective of the OPCAT.28 The appeal concerns a complaint on extending supervision measures during visiting and exercise times. The supervision measures were implemented as the complainant was placed on a list of detainees posing a flight or social risk. Ever since the complainant was transferred to the current penitentiary of stay, the complainant has to have his exercise time alone, due to the structure of the building. The complaints judge had previously considered the complaint to be unfounded. The appeal committee is of the view that the decision to implement supervision measures with respect to visiting times has been properly substantiated. However, the having to exercise alone is near to being at odds with, inter alia, Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR). Yet this decision by the governor of the penitentiary institution still meets the requirements of fairness and reasonability. The appeal was, therefore, declared to be unfounded. The appeal committee does expect the governor to expressly consider alternative solutions when extending the supervision measures. 28 Judgment on appeal of the RSJ of 7 December 2015, 15/2880/GA. 28 Table of Cont