Situation of deprivation of liberty requirements of the control, the features that the informed consent of the inmate of the measure should meet, the criteria to be taken into account to apply the principle of proportionality (the reasonableness of the suspicions, the seriousness of the crime...), the need to request a court order for body control if the inmate refuses to take the X-ray test and the contents of such request to the Judge for Penitentiary Surveillance, etc. Said Recommendation was rejected, notwithstanding the fact that, given the relevance of the matter, this Institution has again requested that its proposals be taken into account. 103. Notwithstanding the need for a measure restricting fundamental rights to be contemplated by a basic law, since it is a measure of control of a medical nature but adopted for regimental reasons, this Institution must express its reservations on the matter, while mentioning that the criteria to found it must be well founded and restrictive. Council Directive 97/43/Euratom on health protection of individuals against the dangers of ionising radiation in relation to medical exposure, establishes that the responsible organisations and persons using ionising radiation must reduce unnecessary exposure of patients to radiation. In addition, as stated in the “Referral guidelines for imaging” of the Directorate-General for the Environment of the European Commission, measures for radiological protection commence by not making unnecessary tests. Performance of the test should be based on founded and strict criteria In the opinion of this Institution, any conflict between self-respect and the rights of the inmates and the duty of the Penitentiary Authority to maintain the security and good regimental order of the CP, must be resolved studying all possible alternatives and weighing up the risk/ benefit that may be caused in each case. Unless the medical services consider that the life of the inmate is at risk for having within his body a strange object or narcotic substance, among other measures less detrimental to the rights of the inmates could also ensure the intended purpose, such as their transfer to a facility containing a toilet system that enables recovery of the narcotic substance, carrying out the appropriate medical monitoring and control of the inmate. Possible alternatives should be considered and the risk/ benefit should be weighted 104. At CP Puerto I (Cádiz) it was verified that, in the case of suspicion that inmates may conceal drugs in their body and that these do not give their consent to submit to radiological controls, the customary procedure is to restrain the inmate mechanically until the eventual expulsion of the substance naturally or until he consents to the radiological control. In the specific case of one inmate, after a few hours of immobilisation, he accepted to take the radiological test, the results of which were negative. At CP Puerto III the application of the same measure to one inmate was also observed. It cannot be agreed that in cases such as these it may be considered that the inmate voluntarily accepted to submit to such examination, since it may be inferred that his reasons were to avoid his immobilisation, or that the measure of mechanical restraint was suitable, since article 72 RP establishes that coercive measures “shall only be applied where no other less burdensome measure exists to achieve the sought purpose”, such as that mentioned in the above paragraph. In respect of the case observed Mechanical restraint if the inmate does not give consent to submit to X-ray controls 99