external injuries did not get documented and described in the journal in detail. In particular, when the doctor was examining the prisoners to look for any injuries, there was a deputy director of the Institution in the doctor’s room directly instructing the doctor not to indicate the injuries that were expressly present on the prisoner’s body in the relevant documents. On admission to a closed institution, a medical screening of the person must be confidential. It is crucial that the person is questioned about ill-treatment only by a doctor, without the prison staff attending.20 In the reporting period, the National Preventive Mechanism paid its inspection visit to the Institution no. 3 of the Penitentiary Department. During the inspection, the Special Preventive Group members observed a prisoner admission process. It turned out that the way prisoner admission is administered at the Institution no. 3 is completely inconsistent with the principle of confidentiality of medical screening. Women prisoners were being visually inspected by a prison staff instead of a doctor. One and the same staff member was searching the person of the prisoner and telling a doctor on duty about injuries found on prisoner’s body. Men prisoners, on the other hand, were being searched by the doctor, in the presence of the prison staff. They were also searching the person of prisoners at the same time; the process was attended by even the escort officers who brought the person to the institution. It should be noted that after the visual observation was over, the doctor filled out the medical papers and talked to the prisoners but this process was also attended by the prison staff. As already mentioned above, a special role in preventing ill-treatment is played by the healthcare personnel responsible for documenting prisoner injuries. In this respect, it is crucial that a relationship of trust is established between the prisoner and the doctor to ensure that possible facts of ill-treatment are fully documented. Such an environment of trust is unimaginable without the doctor and the prisoner being able to communicate in privacy. Members of the National Preventive Mechanism believe that the above-described practices of prisoner admission to penitentiary institutions do not ensure detection of ill-treatment for prevention purposes. Our belief is supported also by the information furnished to us by the Ministry of Corrections that, of the accused persons accommodated in the Institution no. 3 in 2014, 43 persons had injuries on their bodies and only 4 of them indicated the origin of their injuries. Other persons abstained from providing the doctor with any information about their injuries. We note that in its 2013 Annual Report to the Georgian Parliament, the Public Defender recommended to the Minister of Corrections that the Minister elaborate and implement a new form of injury registration in conformity with the Istanbul Protocol to enable taking down of more detailed information about prisoner injuries. Unfortunately, the recommendation of the Public Defender remains unfulfilled to20 23rd General Report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, 2013, par. 75 NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM OF GEORGIA 23