Annual Report 2013 of the National Preventive Mechanism 2012. The SGIP stated that it did not have sufficient human resources to carry out a permanent supervision. 102 Control of immobilised inmates Notwithstanding such permanent supervision criterion, at some visits made, it was observed that not even the provisions of Instruction 3/2010 of the SGIP, of 6 March, on the protocol of action in security cases, are complied with, without any record of a control carried out at least once per hour by the officers to supervise the state of the immobilised inmates. This deficiency was observed in general at CP Puerto I (Cádiz), so that a Suggestion was made for it to be remedied immediately. In the case of CP Puerto III (Cádiz), this was detected in only one of the examined cases. Regardless of whether such deficiency was due to an omission in the surveillance documentation or to negligence in the compulsory control by the officers, the SGIP was informed that both the surveillance of the immobilised inmates should be intensified and that such task should be carried out by higher ranking officers, a conclusion that was accepted by the SGIP. Control of hygienic conditions of the immobilisations 113. At CPs Puerto I and CP Puerto III (Cádiz), various statements were taken from inmates who had been unable to go to the toilet and had to relieve themselves while immobilised. Accordingly, the SGIP was informed that the control by the officers of the conditions of hygiene of the inmates, and of the temperature, ventilation and conditions of the immobilisation, had to be extreme and, to the extent possible, they should be untied to be able to relieve themselves, recording this in the book monitoring the measure. The SGIP accepted the criterion of the Ombudsman. Improvement of the training of personnel in the application of mechanical restraint 114. In the reviewed records of mechanical restraints applied at CPs Puerto I and Puerto III (Cádiz), various cases were observed in which it was stated that the inmates had managed to loosen the belts which, since restraints are not controlled, could imply a risk of self-injury. Accordingly, it is considered necessary to review the manner in which mechanical restraint is applied at said CPs and, if required, to improve the training of the personnel in this area. The SGIP reported that, at CP Puerto III (Cádiz) courses are given on a six-monthly basis on the correct use of coercive measures. It must also be pointed out that a guide for mechanical restraints exists at the centre available to the officers at the special department. At the CP of Córdoba metal handcuffs continued to be used for immobilisations 115. The report on the visit made to the CP of Córdoba in 2011 by the CPT recorded the use of metal handcuffs to immobilise the inmates. Although at the visit of the NPM it was stated that instructions had been given for the use of cloth material restraints –the existence and state of use of which was verified -, some inmates stated that metal handcuffs continued to be used. The SGIP reported that handcuffs are only used for short restraints (such as transfers between departments), and that the use of cloth restraints is compulsory for immobilisations.