XI) Discipline employees) are trained in, and tasked with, treating convicts. It is questionable to what extent they can be expected to formulate legally flawless administrative decisions (decisions on imposition of a disciplinary punishment). I recommend that the General Directorate of the Prison Service: •• Has disciplinary proceedings supervised by prison lawyers, considering the increased demands placed on such proceedings. It seems that the overall decline of disciplinary practice is related to the above-described new internal regulation of disciplinary proceedings. I am personally convinced that the system of disciplinary rewards and punishments should not be the convicts’ sole motivator and I do not perceive the decline of disciplinary practice as inherently negative. However, the judges need to be aware of this change in the disciplinary practice, as e.g. in parole proceedings they often formalistically require several disciplinary rewards in order to approve the given application. A practice has been established for dozens of years where convicts aspiring for parole have far better prospects if they have received several disciplinary rewards. The judicial system has been long accustomed to this system. This is not to encourage restoration of the once abundant disciplinary practice, but rather to acquaint judges with the change. The change in judicial practice should also be reflected in the evaluations prepared by specialist employees for the purposes of court proceedings. I recommend that the General Directorate of the Prison Service: •• Ensures that the change in judicial practice be taken into consideration in the evalua- tions prepared by prisons for courts. I recommend that the Ministry of Justice: •• Within the regular conferences with presiding judges, presents judges with informa- tion on the change in the disciplinary practice in prisons. /54/