VISITS BY THE JOINT COMMISSION which have already partitioned off showers of any increase in the number of assaults. reports within the juvenile justice system of staff addressing prisoners using the informal “du” form in German. Nevertheless, staff in those facilities which had issued instructions not to use this form of address were sometimes still doing so. This can come across to prisoners as derogatory and lacking in respect. Juvenile prisoners should thus also generally be addressed using the formal “Sie” in German. It was noted that staff often do not knock on cell doors before entering. The policy of knocking before entering a room should become an integral part of staff members’ respectful treatment of juvenile prisoners and should be applied consistently everywhere.18 1.2.5 – Translations of house rules The house rules in juvenile penal institutions contain a list of prisoners’ rights and duties. Disregarding these duties can lead to sanctions. The house rules should therefore be translated into those languages which are most commonly spoken by prisoners. The matter of the high translation costs can be mitigated by drawing up model house rules, which some Länder have already done. 1.2.6 – Respectful treatment 18 Re youth detention, see National Agency, Annual Report 2014, p. 29 et seq. In contrast to what the Joint Commission noted in youth detention facilities, there were less frequent 2 – YOUTH DETENTION CENTRES As an addition to its special focus in 2014, the Joint Commission visited Lebach Youth Detention Centre and carried out follow-up visits to Düsseldorf and Wetter (Ruhr) Youth Detention Centres in 2015. The reports on its visits to Arnstadt and Moltsfelde Juvenile Detention Centres, conducted in early 2015, were included in the Annual Report 2014.19 Over and above those shortcomings which the Joint Commission noted in the Annual Report 2014 as occurring relatively frequently in youth detention, it noted the poor state of repair of Lebach Juvenile Detention Centre. The detention rooms, measuring only 8m2 and with a toilet which is not separated off or supplied with separate ventilation, were occupied by two people. The Federal Constitutional Court held that comparable conditions of detention constituted a violation of human dignity. 20 The Commission pointed out that no one can give their consent to inhuman or degrading conditions of detention. Further, it recommended swiftly hiring a social worker to fill the currently vacant post and to provide those in detention with information about the pedagogical concept being applied in the facility. The detention centre was in urgent need of renovation. Also, detainees were unable to look outside on account of the frosted glass screens in front of their windows. Sufficient daylight should be guaranteed in all detention rooms and detainees should always be able to look out of their windows. They should also be able themselves to switch the light in their room on and off at night. The Joint Commission also recommended organising the detainees’ admission to the facility in such a way that they can be examined by a doctor as soon as possible. The doctor currently visits the facility once a week, while detainees are admitted every of the week. As a result, detainees sometimes have to wait up to a week before they can see the doctor.21 During its follow-up visits to Düsseldorf and Wetter (Ruhr) Juvenile Detention Centres the Joint Commission found that the majority of its recommendations had not been implemented, although it had been informed by the supervisory authority that they had in part been carried out. The Joint Commission is in further contact with the competent ministry in regard to this matter. 19 21 National Agency, Annual Report 2014, p. 26 et seqq. Federal Constitutional Court, file no. 1 BvR 409/09, 22 February 2011, margin no. 31 – juris 20 30 National Agency, Annual Report 2014, p. 29