Report of the Human Rights Defender on the activities of the National Preventive Mechanism in Poland in 2012 Defender in 2011.39 It said that the penitentiary supervision fails to eliminate irregularities in serving the penalty of deprivation of liberty in terms of individual complaints, and it fails to cover all issues significant from the point of view of serving the penalty of imprisonment during visits to places of detention. The Minister of Justice did not share the Defender’s view and position.40 Analysis of reports from visits to places of detention by penitentiary judges, performed by the NPM representatives, and asking inmates about their “experience” with contacts with penitentiary judges allow concluding that the penitentiary supervision system is not working correctly yet. This is confirmed by the results of studies carried out by the Association for Legal Intervention. According to the study authors, the “fundamental weaknesses of the current supervision system lie in its ‘softness’ where its efficiency is concerned (i.e. its influence on incidental and structural errors in serving a penalty in the visited prison) and in invisibility to prisoners whom it is supposed to serve in the first place. The weaknesses affect its reliability and efficiency of the actions taken by judges – the actions that require time and money.”41 3. Lack of the possibility on the part of people temporarily arrested to call their defence attorneys or attorneys. Another systemic issue is preventing people temporarily arrested from calling their defence attorneys or attorneys. The issue has been discussed in detail in the reports for 201042 and 2011.43 It has been three years since the Defender’s first petition on the issue,44 i.e. from 30.03.2010. In this period, the Executive Penal Code has been amended several times, and the most recent explanations do not RPO-599333-II-710/08/JM of 15 July 2011: http://www.sprawy-generalne.brpo.gov.pl/szczegoly. php?pismo=1579764. 40 The reply of 24 August 2011 stated that the judges appointed for penitentiary visiting judges are selected from among judges with extensive expertise and experience in supervision from a given regional and appellate court. Meetings of penitentiary judges are held on a regular basis, during which they exchange their experience. 41 See: M. Niełaczna, Penitentiary supervision in Poznań court district. Report from pilot studies. Analizy, Raporty, Ekspertyzy Vol. 2/2012, p. 35. 42 Report of the Human Rights Defender on the activities of the National Preventive Mechanism in Poland in 2010, pp. 56-57, hereinafter: HRD Bulletin. Źródła 2011, vol. 3: http://www.rpo.gov.pl/sites/ default/files/Biuletyn%20RPO%202011%2C%20nr%203.%20%C5%B9r%C3%B3d%C5%82a_0.pdf. 43 Report of the Human Rights Defender on the activities of the National Preventive Mechanism in Poland in 2011, pp. 45-46, hereinafter: HRD Bulletin. Źródła 2012, vol. 5: http://www.rpo.gov.pl/sites/ default/files/Biuletyn%20RPO%202012%2C%20nr%205.%20%C5%B9r%C3%B3d%C5%82a_0.pdf. 44 RPO-637904-VII-7004.2/7008/10/JZ http://www.sprawy-generalne.brpo.gov.pl/szczegoly.php?pismo=1473026. 39 28