Juvenile detention centres and juvenile shelters 5. Right to complain The visiting team established that in 2011 the director of the visited Detention Centre filed 5 notifications of suspicion of criminal offences committed by its residents to the prosecutor’s office or to the police. According to the director the offences included: making unlawful threats to a tutor, using vulgar language towards a teacher and provocative and aggressive behaviour, destroying separate living premises, making a phone call and giving false information about a riot in the Detention Centre or smashing a window. Moreover, in 2011 an employee of the Detention Centre and the director brought two actions for the protection of personal rights after the residents of the establishment filed complaints that the subsequent examination by supervisory authorities proved to be groundless. The claimants requested for that the effects of the infringement of personal rights be removed and the rights protected, inter alia, by ordering the defendant juveniles to submit to the Minister of Justice, the Regional Prosecutor’s Office and the District Team for Educational Supervision an official apology and a statement saying that their accusations against the claimants are false and the complaints filed to the public authorities were groundless and resulted from ill will and a wish to make a joke. The visiting team is of the opinion that the aim of bringing action to the court in response to complaints by juveniles is to discourage juveniles from filing complaints to public authorities and to show potential complainants the possible consequences of lodging complaints. It should be emphasised that anyone deprived of liberty has the right to file requests and complaints to the authority responsible for the institution where they are held, and they should not suffer any negative consequences and sanctions for exercising this right. 6. Living conditions The living conditions in the establishment were very good: the rooms of the juveniles, toilets, entertainment rooms and classrooms looked good and were adequately equipped. The Mechanism had no reservations in this regard. However, the provision of underwear to juveniles proved to be a serious problem. The report from the visit to the establishment in 2010 stated that juveniles receive only one pair of socks and underwear per month (without an opportunity to replace) and, therefore, at the time of washing and drying, they are forced to go without underwear. In response to the recommendation to change this situation, the director of the Detention Centre issued an order allowing the juveniles to receive, upon a written request, their private underwear and socks kept in the deposit. However, the NPM employees believe that this does not solve the problem. The juveniles who have no possessions are still left with only one pair of socks and briefs. The representatives of the National Preventive Mechanism are of the opinion that the establishment should 59