2014-2015 REPORT ON NATIONAL PREVENTION OF TORTURE noticed shortcomings and recommendations for eliminating them and it was submitted to the heads of institution, and, where necessary, to other responsible institutions. ditional activities and a lack of wheelchairs for persons with a disability of mobility). STAGES OF INSPECTION However, it was noticed that many problems were systemic, therefore individual reports were replaced by common reports following inspections of several places of detention of the same type. Such reports assessed factual circumstances according to appropriate areas and described systemic human rights violations identified as well as the best practice observed in the institutions in order to improve the persons’ living/detention conditions. 1. Preparation for the visit 2. Conducting the visit 3. Writing a report with findings and recommendations 4. Publishing the report on the Internet 5. Sending the report to the head of the monitored institution 6. Consultations regarding possible implementation measures of issued recommendations 7. Receiving feedbak from the place of detention 8. Considering whether to make a follow-up visit All reports on inspections in places of detention are published on the website of the Seimas Ombudsmen’s Office. It is noteworthy that according to Article 191 (6) of the Law on the Seimas Ombudsmen, competent institutions must examine proposals (recommendations) of the Seimas Ombudsmen, consult the Seimas Ombudsmen regarding possible measures for implementation of the proposals (recommendations) and notify the Seimas Ombudsmen of the results of implementation of their proposals (recommendations). Preparation for inspections included review of the requirements of legal acts, case law, and the standards of the Committee for the Prevention of Torture and its reports following visits to Lithuania collecting material about the institution to be inspected. Planned inspections were not notified in advance. During the visit, officials carrying out an inspection communicated with heads of institutions, the staff of the administration and other staff as well as detainees and, if that was possible, with their relatives. Also, various premises (personal, common-use) were inspected, the installation of the premises was assessed, the infrastructure of the institution as well various registration logs and other documents were examined. The institutions examined the conclusions set out in the reports and submitted plans for the implementation of the recommendations with specific timeframes for the implementation of particular recommendations. It should be noted that a part of the recommendations of the Seimas Ombudsmen were fully or partially implemented. Cooperation further continues regarding the recommendations which were not implemented. In the first year of work, following each inspection, a report was prepared with conclusions on 7