of non-lethal weapons. Also, considering the threats associated with the use of such weapons, the law should expressly say that “special means” should only be applied when – and to the extent – strictly necessary to maintain security and order.79 STRAITJACKETS, RESTRAINT CHAIRS, RESTRAINT BEDS Pursuant to Rule 33 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules, straitjackets as instruments of restraint shall never be used. Article 571(2)(b) of the Imprisonment Code allows for the use of straitjackets, restraint chairs and restraint beds. These instruments should be used under a doctor’s supervision. It should be noted that the National Preventive Mechanism has become aware of the fact that on 20 September 2014, the staff of the penitentiary institution no. 3 used a restraint bed in relation to convicted prisoner L.Q. Having inquired into the report, we found out that the restraint bed was used in violation of the provisions of the “Types of specials means possessed by bodies responsible for enforcement of pretrial detention and imprisonment as well as rules and conditions of storing, carrying and using such means; rules of determining persons authorized to use the special means” approved by the Order of the Minister of Corrections no. 145 dated 12 September 2014. In particular, the prison director did not draw up a report on the use of special means and did not send it to the Minister of Corrections and the Chairman of the Penitentiary Department, as required by Article 18 of the abovementioned Rules. The use of restraint bed was documented in the minutes which say in their reasoning section: “L.Q. was attempting to injure himself and those around him. His conduct was manifestly aggressive and, due to the extreme security condition, a restraint bed was used because other means were ineffective.” This explanation does not contain a reasoning of why other means were considered ineffective. Also, it is unclear who made the decision to use a restraint bed. According to Article 13(2 Types of specials means possessed by bodies responsible for enforcement of pretrial detention and imprisonment as well as rules and conditions of storing, carrying and using such means; rules of determining persons authorized to use the special means” approved by the Order of the Minister of Corrections no. 145 dated 12 September 2014, a director of a penitentiary institution or an authorized person in the director’s absence have the right to make such decisions. It should also be mentioned that a letter from the penitentiary institution no. 3 came with a certificate on health status issued by the institution’s chief doctor, which reads: “Prisoner L.Q. who is put under electronic observation is agitated, anxious and inclined to injuring himself. He needed to be monitored strictly. For this reason, between 20:15 and 22:10 on 20 September 2015, a restraint bed was used in relation to the prisoner for security reasons. The patient then calmed down, as the doctor on duty reported, and no injuries were found on his body as a result of his examination.” As we can see, the chief doctor relies on a hearsay account of the doctor on duty and it is unclear 79 Ibid. par. 72, p. 38. NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM OF GEORGIA 51