cy because of overcrowding, and the inmates had only been accommodated in these cells for a short time. A female inmate however informed the Joint Commission that she had been living in such a doubly occupied single cell for three months. The cells are unsuited to double occupancy because of the sanitary area and because they are too small. This situation was further exacerbated by the short out-of-cell time. It was strongly recommended to promptly cease the double occupancy of these cells since the human dignity of the women accommodated was not adequately protected. Reaction: The occupancy situation in the women’s prisons of the Land North Rhine-Westphalia was said to be currently tense. It was not always possible to avoid the establishment of cramped joint accommodation. However, attempts were made on the spot to keep cramped joint accommodation as short as possible. Because of the large number of drug addicts and women who were at risk of suicide as a result of withdrawal, joint accommodation could not be entirely avoided because of the ordering of special security measures which this entailed. Moreover, it was currently being examined to create additional accommodation possibilities. In order to ensure a sufficient sight guard in the toilet area, it was planned to attach curtains in place of the screens that were still in use. The Joint Commission pointed out that curtains were by no means adequate, as emerges from the order of the Federal Constitutional Court of 22 February 2011.17 The accommodation of two criminal convicts under the conditions described constitutes a violation of human dignity and is not acceptable even for a brief period. A curtain only provides an optical sight guard and is not suited to prevent noise and smell. Reaction: The occupancy level of the closed women’s section had increased considerably in the first half of 2012. Since it had not been possible within this brief period to do justice to developments in occupancy by creating additional detention places, the reallocation of the accommodation that was available, which had so far been used for the men’s section and was currently no longer needed for this purpose, had remained the only possibility. It was planned for the beginning of 2013 to make available 49 additional detention places for female inmates in Building 10. Moreover, it was being considered to use a further detention building with approximately 60 detention places for the purposes of women’s detention in the medium term once the ongoing basic repair work had been completed. These measures would enable the prison to resolve the problem of cramped joint accommodation (double occupancy of solitary confinement cells) in the foreseeable future. The prison was actively asking for inmates’ consent to cramped joint accommodation. 17 Cf. Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG), order of 22 February 2011, 1 BvR 409/09. 35