In X v. Turkey, the European Court of Human Rights stated that the Government was unable to explain why the applicant was not given the opportunity to take regular open-air exercise. After having examined the case circumstances, the Court concluded that the applicant had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment.26 Problems related to physical environment at penitentiary institutions are discussed in the relevant chapter of this Report. It is worth noting that during the reporting period the Public Defender’s Office encountered cases where prisoners had been unduly placed separately from other prisoners for different reasons and the conditions they were kept in were incompatible with the established standards as humiliating and degrading the dignity of their persons. For example: On 22 January 2014, the Public Defender’s trustees met and spoke with defendants detained separately from other inmates at the Institution no. 6. They inspected the detainees’ living and other conditions as well. Having spoken with the accused persons and inspected their residential cells, we found out that they were allocated in the cells on the first floor but the cells were under the ground by half of their size. The walls in the cells were newly painted that made the cells humid. The stone tiles on the floor were soiled with construction mud. Each cell had one window sized 70x70 cm with three-rowed built-in iron bars. Also, in front of the windows, there was a wall construction in the yard that made penetration of sufficient daylight into the cells impossible. The detained defendants were saying they were keeping the windows open all the time because, firstly, had they closed the windows, they would not open again because the windows had no handles and, secondly, the cells were not being ventilated enough. These factors altogether had the effect that the temperature in the cells was low, despite the fact that the heating system was on. The doors of toilets inside the cells were barely covering the toilets and the toilets were not therefore fully isolated. There was no water tank to flush the toilet. There were ventilation pipes in the cell but the ventilation system was off; in fact, the detained defendants stated, the ventilation system was never on. In conversation with us, the accused detainees stated that, due to the above-described conditions, they were suffering from lack of air, they had not been allowed to do an outdoor exercise since the day they were admitted to Institution no. 6 (28 November 2013), and they were alone in the cells, isolated from others. All these factors were negatively affecting their mental health with the effect that they had sleep disorders, were feeling anxiety and could easily get irritated. Some of the detainees had inflicted self-injuries stating they did so out of protest against the conditions they were kept in. The administration of the penitentiary institution referred to security reasons as a justification for keeping the accused detainees isolated. Because the detention conditions of these prisoners were not complying with the established standards, on 28 January 2014, the Public Defender addressed the Minister of Corrections with 26 X. v. Turkey, Judgment of 9 October, 2012, application no. 24626/09, §§ 42-45. 28 NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM OF GEORGIA