separated from the other female prisoners. The prison director conceded that such a course of action should have been pursued much earlier. 3.3. Response of authorities and circumstances The way prison authorities react to inter-prisoner violence largely depends on the level of violence and the capacity of the institution to respond appropriately and promptly. It needs to be emphasized that the situation in regard to inter-prisoner violence greatly differs between so called “closed institutions” and “semi-open” ones. In closed institutions prison staff do not interfere to the extent needed to prevent and manage physical violence. The reasons may differ but a commonly noted one is that these institutions are operating above their maximum capacity and lack sufficient staff. For example, as of April 2010, Zenica prison suffered from significant overcrowding with 800 prisoners, although its official capacity is 600. Due to difficult living conditions and limited activities, inmates may also face psychological problems, evidenced recently by two suicides in the Zenica facility. The preliminary reports suggest psychiatric problems and drug overdose. During interviews with prison management, concerns regarding understaffing and the psychological health of prison staff were expressed. As a matter of some concern, prison authorities overly use the department of intensified supervision in Foca as the only protective measure for prisoners in danger. This de facto isolation is not a consequence of any disciplinary measure but rather as a protective measure. Some prisoners are placed under close supervision in order to create a separation of different prisoners, which results in reducing the respective prisoners’ regime and privileges, and, ultimately may constitute a form of discrimination. In semi-open institutions it was reported that immediate disciplinary action is regularly taken in response to inter-prisoner violence, normally resulting in solitary confinement. Prisoners who have been transferred from a closed institution to a semi-open one also confirmed that the prospect of being re-transferred to closed institutions due to disciplinary violations strongly discourages violent behaviour. It was also observed, in semi-open prisons, that some prison directors introduced a zero tolerance policy, meaning that there was an automatic initiation of criminal procedures against prisoners who allegedly committed violent acts inside prison walls. Section IV. Complaints and Disciplinary proceedings 1. Complaint procedures and remedial action regarding ill-treatment 1.1. International human rights standards Prisoners should have avenues of complaint open to them both within and outside the context of the prison system, including the possibility of having confidential access to an appropriate authority. UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners elaborate on the rights of prisoners to be allowed to address requests or complaints “without censorship as to substance but in proper form, to the central prison administration, the judicial authority or other proper authorities through approved channels”. The following section addresses both complaint procedures, as well as more formal disciplinary procedures, as both may be important mechanisms to reduce and manage instances of ill-treatment. 14