shared use should be added to this list. In its reports on visits to various countries the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) has been emphasizing that the privacy of detained persons should be preserved when they are using a toilet and washing themselves.62 The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) has been emphasizing that the decision to establish a visual and/or electronic surveillance and control must be reasoned failing which such decision may be considered to be in violation of the prisoner’s right to privacy. According to Article 4 of the draft ministerial order, a director of the institution decides to apply the measure by issuing a relevant order. Although Article 3 of the draft order says the director’s decision must be reasoned and proportional to the purpose, we believe it is necessary to expand the content of Article 4 to specify that, in each case a visual and/or electronic surveillance and control is authorized, the director’s decision must refer to the facts and circumstances that warranted application of the measure. The director’s decision should also provide arguments as to why other means would not be effective in the given case. In each individual case, risks should be evaluated in detail and the director’s decision (order) must clearly prove that visual and/or electronic surveillance and control are the only means with no alternative. This is important against the background that current decisions authorizing electronic surveillance contain scarce information and rather stencil phrases. According to the draft ministerial order, after a decision to establish visual and/or electronic control is made, the administration must warn the remand/sentenced prisoner about it, except in the events prescribed by law. This will be documented in the relevant minutes to be signed by the prisoner. We think it would be more appropriate if the prisoner not only signs the minutes but also receives a copy thereof. This formulation could be inserted as an additional paragraph in Article 5 of the ministerial order. Article 8 of the draft order basically repeats the relevant provision from the Imprisonment Code stating that the institution’s administration may visually observe a meeting of individuals referred to in Article 54(6) of the Code using remote surveillance and make a recording by technical means, but without hearing the conversation. We believe the above-mentioned provisions of both the Imprisonment Code and the draft ministerial order must prescribe an exception to this rule whenever prisoners are meeting with the Public Defender/Special Preventive Group because these provisions expressly contradict Article 19(3) of the Organic Law on Public Defender, which provides: “Meetings of the Public Defender/Special Preventive Group members with persons who are detained, remanded or whose liberty is otherwise restricted and with convicted prisoners as well as with persons in psychiatric institutions, shelters for senior citizens and children’s homes shall be confidential. No eavesdropping or 62 http://www.cpt.coe.int/documents/hun/2010-16-inf-eng.pdf see p. 19, par. 31; see also http://www.cpt.coe.int/documents/ita/2013-32-inf-eng.pdf p. 30, par. 60 [last viewed 22.03.2015] NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM OF GEORGIA 45