• The NPM recommends that the possibility be examined for every prisoner to confirm with the date and their signature that they have been briefed on the sentence enforcement regime at the time of their admittance. • The NPM recommends that prisoners be alerted to the fact that they can participate in the preparation of their personal plan by providing their recommendations, when presented with their personal plan for signature. • The NPM recommends that educators clearly and understandably explain to the prisoners that benefits are bestowed by the prison director, and inform them that they can receive such benefits only if they actively try to succeed in fulfilling their personal plan and observe the house rules, and that a transfer is possible only for justified reasons or on the basis of an assessment that they will not abuse a less strict regime (Articles 77 through 81 of the ZIKS-1). • The NPM supports the prisoners’ recommendation for more individual treatment, as this is one of the main tasks of the educator. • The NPM again recommends that the possibility of reducing the administrative workload of educators and employing new staff be studied, which will result in more time for direct work with prisoners. • The NPM supports the psychologists’ recommendation that additional staff from the fields of psychology and psychotherapy be employed, as this would reduce the workload and contribute to more effective treatment for prisoners. • The NPM recommends that the possibility of employing a psychologist in Department I be studied, who would work exclusively with the prisoners from this department. • The NPM believes that since every educator currently works with a small number of prisoners, it should not happen that an educator fails to react promptly should a prisoner want to talk to them. • The NPM would like to know whether the prison has an internal deadline as to how soon educators must react to a prisoner’s request to talk, and if so, how can the observance of this deadline be determined. • The NPM would like to know about the procedure involving the prisoner's request for a change of educator, who decides on this change, and what are the justified reasons for changing the assigned educator. We further propose that prisoners are informed of this fact, as more than 15 prisoners emphasised this problem in their answers. • The NPM recommends that the prison tries to additionally motivate prisoners to work in small groups and home communities, e.g. by enabling prisoners to offer their proposals and opinions on the living conditions and daily activities in an individual department. • The NPM requests for an explanation of why 56% of prisoners who will (shortly) have served their sentence are not familiar with the procedures for providing assistance, management, and organisation of a plan for social inclusion after discharge. • The NPM recommends that the prison again enables outdoor exercise in the afternoon for prisoners in Departments I and III. • The NPM expects that the construction of additional or new outdoor yards will be completed in the shortest possible time, which will allow prisoners to stay longer outdoors. •T  he NPM would like to know why the refurbishment of the roof took so long. • The NPM recommends that the prison tries to implement the proposals made by the prisoners with regard to the refurbishment of gym equipment, the purchase of a football goal, a ball, books, and power distributors. The NPM further recommends that the prison studies the possibility of expanding the number of TV programmes and the introduction of playing volleyball or tennis, as well as the possibility of introducing chess and other tournaments between departments. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUTIES AND POWERS OF THE NPM IN 2017 NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM UNDER THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE UN CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT 89