2.2.3.3.  IMPORTANCE OF SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS A penitentiary institution should be based on several components of security. One of such components is physical security that implies a physical sustainability of the premises and additional security systems such as video surveillance.34 Video surveillance of prisoners should be implemented in way that their rights are protected and risks and threats related to their privacy are paid due consideration. This means that such video control should only be exercised in places of shared use as determined by law. Video observation at places of shared use implies electronic surveillance only in non-private areas such as the prison reception unit, corridors, exercising yards, etc. Electronic surveillance and control of remand and convicted prisoners may not be administered in shared shower rooms, toilets and rooms designed for long-term visits except in accordance with a procedure and in circumstances envisaged by the Georgian legislation. The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) has been emphasizing in its reports to individual countries that it is essential that the privacy of detained persons be preserved when they are using a toilet and washing themselves.35 Video surveillance is one of the most important components of prison security. It also enhances public control over and monitoring of places of shared used. The Georgina legislation regulates how video surveillance should be exercised in such places. Pursuant to the Imprisonment Code of Georgia, the administration has the right to use audio, visual and other technical means of electronic control. 36 The aim of this power is to prevent escaping from the prison and prevention of commission of crime or other wrongdoing as well as to collect information. As a result of the monitoring visits paid to various penitentiary institutions, the National Preventive Mechanism was able to reveal problems that lack of proper video control of places of shared use may entail. In particular, we witnessed once again the need for electronic surveillance in such places as we were on our visit to the Institution no. 8 on 12 November 2014 when the Public Defender’s trustees found shackled prisoners with traces of violence on their bodies in the shower room of the Smart Reception Unit. It is without doubt that had the Smart Reception Unit been equipped with surveillance cameras, it would have been possible to obtain evidence having crucial importance to the investigation – a video recording – that would help find out at least who took the prisoners to the Smart Reception Unit and how.37 In one of its reports to the Turkish 34 35 36 37 Andrew Coyle, A human Rights Approach to prison management, International Centre for Prison Studies (2009). Report to the Hungarian Government on the visit to Hungary carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 24 March to 2 April 2009, available at: http://www.cpt.coe.int/documents/hun/201016-inf-eng.pdf [last viewed 23.03.2015]. Under Article 54(1) of the Imprisonment Code of Georgia, “the administration is entitled to use, in accordance with the legally established procedure, audio-visual, electronic or other technical means of control”. The Public Defender’s 2014 Report on its Visit to the Penitentiary Institution No. 8, p. 8, accessible at http://www.ombudsman.ge/uploads/other/2/2196.pdf [last viewed 23.03.2015]. NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM OF GEORGIA 31