SPOTLIGHT ON THE EXECUTION OF YOUTH IMPRISONMENT prison service in the majority of prisons reported that cooperation and coordination were good. Equally, the Joint Commission often noted the relaxed relationship between staff and prisoners, most especially in Hahnöfersand, Ottweiler, Schifferstadt, RegisBreitingen, Wriezen and Wuppertal-Ronsdorf. Many of the facilities it visited, for instance Adelsheim, Ebrach, Hameln and Ottweiler, had also responded to the increase in the number of prisoners with mental health issues and had begun cooperating with psychiatrists. In some cases, as well as having the option of placing detainees in a psychiatric unit in the prison infirmary, agreements have been reached so that they can also be placed in general psychiatric hospitals or in child and youth psychiatric clinics when required. these languages. Nevertheless, other prisoners should not be involved in meetings in which personal matters are discussed. Medical consultations in particular should not involve a member of staff acting as an interpreter. Language barriers can to a certain extent be overcome using computer-assisted translation methods, for example apps on mobile phones or tablets. Hameln has gained good experience of using these. A project in Bavaria, where interpreters take part in such meetings via video conferencing, is also promising. 1.2.3 – Strip-searches Some institutions reported that prisoners are on principle strip-searched upon admission. This constitutes serious interference with prisoners’ dignity. On account of the particular severity of such an invasion of prisoners’ privacy and the sense of shame they feel as a result, they have a right to be treated with especial respect. 15 The European Court of Human Rights likewise bases its case law on the assessment that strip-searches may be justified in order to ensure prison security and to prevent disorder or crime, but that they must be conducted circumspectly and not routinely and independently of case-specific suspicions.16 Especially in the juvenile justice system, therefore, each case must be weighed up before a justified, documented decision is taken.17 1.2 – RECOMMENDATIONS Despite the good general impression which emerged, there are still possibilities for improving some areas of the juvenile justice system across Germany to safeguard decent conditions of detention. However, most of these recommendations do not only apply specifically to the juvenile justice system but equally to the adult penal system. 1.2.1 – Placement in a specially secured room with no dangerous objects The specially secured rooms in many juvenile penal institutions can be monitored by CCTV camera. Often the detainees’ privacy is not sufficiently protected while CCTV monitoring is in operation or on account of their being observed through a peephole. Unrestricted CCTV monitoring should be the exception not the rule.13 Prisoners should at least be given a pair of paper underpants and a paper shirt to wear when they are placed in the specially secured room.14 Where this policy was not previously applied, the National Agency’s recommendations have now been adopted in practice. It is only in Hamburg that the practicability of issuing prisoners with paper shirts is still being examined. 1.2.4 – Partitions in communal showers The Joint Commission observed that in nearly all the juvenile penal institutions it visited a significant proportion of prisoners keep their underwear on when showering in the communal showers. In many prisons a few prisoners are permitted, with the staff’s agreement, to shower alone. Preference should, however, be given to partitioning off at least one shower in all communal showers so that prisoners can, if they wish to do so, shower during normal hours as well without having to wear their underpants. The National Agency has received no reports from those prisons 15 Cf. re pre-trial detention: Federal Constitutional Court, order of 4 February 2009, file no. 2 BvR 455/08; order of 10 July 2013, file no. 2 BvR 2815/11. Also: UN General Assembly, UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the “Mandela Rules”), A/Res/70/175, 17.12.2015, Rule 52 16 See European Court of Human Rights, judgment of 4 February 2003, Van der Ven v. the Netherlands, Application no. 50901/99, margin no. 62; judgment of 4 February 2003, Lorsé and Others v. the Netherlands, Application no. 52750/99, margin no. 74; judgment of 12 June 2007, Frérot v. France, Application no. 70204/01, margin no. 41, 47; judgment of 27 November 2012, Savics v. Latvia, Application no. 17892/03, margin no. 133, 142 et seqq. 17 As regards youth detention, see National Agency, Annual Report 2014, p. 30 1.2.2 – Communicating with prisoners who speak a foreign language It is particularly in view of the increase in the number of unaccompanied child refugees being taken into pre-trial detention that staff are also increasingly having to deal with prisoners with whom communication is difficult or impossible on account of language barriers. It is often difficult to find interpreters for 13 14 See I.3.1.1 above See I.3.1.3 above 29