Situation of deprivation of liberty deprived of liberty who may remain up to 22 hours confined in their cell to enjoy the possibility of going out of doors. For this reason it is considered, notwithstanding the desirable removal of the aforementioned metal meshes, that the use of this department should be limited to punishment consisting of isolation in a cell and for application of provisional isolation, but it should not be used as a unit for the permanent stay of inmates under the closed regime. Since the SGIP rejected the criterion of this Institution, a suggestion was made to such effect. A cell and the yard of the isolation department of CP Villabona (Asturias) 119. With regard to the application of article 75 RP, although the criterion adopted by the SGIP does not conform to that issued by the Ombudsman, as was stated in paragraph 104 of Annual Report 2012, at the visits it was verified that its application complies at least with Instruction 3/2010, of 6 March, of the SGIP, on the protocol of action related to security matters. The SGIP reported that, due to the conclusions reached at the visits made by the NPM, application of article 75 RP was included as a matter to be verified at the visits of the Penitentiary Inspectorate. In addition, in May 2013, the Sub-directorate General for Penitentiary Treatment and Management issued Service Order No. 4/2013, in which the managements of the various CPs were reminded of the exceptional and secondary nature of these measures established by said Instruction and the appropriate procedure for their application. After the visits made by the NPM, the application of article 75 RP is examined by the Penitentiary Inspectorate 120. As regards the visits made in 2013, at CP Puerto I (Cádiz), many records were reviewed and it was observed that article 75.1 RP was applied with certain frequency. At CP Puerto III (Cádiz), in turn, it was observed that, in more than 50% of the reviewed records, the duration of regimental restrictions exceeded one month, in two cases, it was longer than two months and, in another two, it exceeded three months. It was also observed that, in one case, the specific restrictions were not specified in the resolution for their application. In turn, application of article 75.1, with prohibition to use the yard for two days in certain cases in which there were suspicions that the inmates carried drugs did not appear to be sufficiently founded. Due to this, the SGIP was informed that application of article 75.1 RP should be reviewed at both Acceptance of the observations of this Institution in respect of the application of the regimental restrictions of article 75 RP 105