Report of the Human Rights Defender on the activities of the National Preventive Mechanism in Poland in 2012 visited establishments.66 The behaviour of the prison officers in one of the establishments67 who commented on ailments reported by prisoners to doctors during medical consultation was deemed totally unacceptable. The CPT also expressed its doubts concerning the issue. The Committee acknowledged that special security measures may be required during medical examinations in a particular case. However, there can be no justification for prison guards being systematically present during such examinations; their presence is detrimental to the establishment of a proper doctor-patient relationship and usually unnecessary from a security point of view. Alternative solutions can and should be found to reconcile legitimate security requirements with the principle of medical confidentiality. One possibility might be the installation of a call system, whereby a doctor would be in a position to rapidly alert prison officers in each case of a security threat. The steps should be taken to bring practice in line with the above considerations. If necessary, the law should be amended accordingly 68 3.  Disciplinary procedure The employees of the National Preventive Mechanism did not find any infringements of the law with regard to the prisoners’ right to use the means of appeal against penalties or the negligence of the Prison Service in informing the persons deprived of liberty about the existence of such means of appeal. The frequency of using disciplinary measures by prison authorities and the proportion of those measures to rewards did not raise any doubts of the Mechanism. However, the visiting team questioned the alarming practice found in semi-open prisons. During the interviews in two such establishments69, the inmates complained that the officers were disciplining them verbally, each time threatening them with using disciplinary measures. According to the inmates, such practice leads to restriction on the use of their rights in fear of “falling into disfavour with prison officers” which may result in disciplinary measures against inmates. The representatives of the NPM believe that some kind of promotion consisting in the possibility to serve one’s sentence in a semi-open prison is in itself a sufficient opportunity to verify the self-discipline of inmates. Prisoners are well aware of the fact that they are in such an establishment as a result of positive criminological prognosis and know very well that if they breach the 66 Prison in Chełm, Prison in Grodków, Prison in Rzeszów, Pre-trial Detention Centre in Chełmno, Prison in Wołów. 67 Prison in Rzeszów. 68 Cf. § 123 CPT/(2011)20. It should be remembered that in her motion addressed to the Constitutional Tribunal on 18 October 2010 (RPO-637905-VII-10/MC http://www.sprawy-generalne.brpo. gov.pl/szczegoly.php?pismo=1519794) the Human Rights Defender requested to declare Article 115 § 7 of the Executive Penal Code to be incompliant with Article 47 in conjunction with Article 31(3) of the Polish Constitution. However, the motion of the Defender has not been examined yet. 69 Prison in Tarnów-Mościce, Prison in Nowy Wiśnicz. 38