with a consultant was made within the clinic and waited for in less urgent cases. This procedure was in compliance with the guidelines and with the circular letter of the Bavarian Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, Families and Women of 30 November 2009. Having said that, there were occasional conflicts with patients who wanted external doctors to be consulted more quickly. The senior medical officer had now discussed the applicable guidelines for consulting external consultants with the medical team and pointed out once more that where there was a medical necessity (e.g. where someone was in acute pain), external doctors should be consulted within a suitable timeframe. The group therapy rooms available were completely inadequate: According to the information provided, only one single group therapy room was available. The latter evidently had inadequate resources as to furniture and technical equipment. What is more, the Joint Commission learned that it had rained into the room and that this room could therefore only be used to a restricted degree. The Joint Commission recommended the establishment and appropriate equipment of further group therapy rooms. One group room per wing for roughly 15 patients would be desirable. Reaction: A separate group room and (for ward groups) the common rooms of the wings were available for the implementation of therapeutic groups at the time of the visit by the Joint Commission. In view of the plans to intensify in-patient psychotherapy, it was desirable to have a further separate group room. The possibility of setting up such a room was currently being examined. 5.6.3 Police Station 11 in Hamburg The Joint Commission carried out inspection visits in Police Stations 11, 14 and 16 in Hamburg on 31 March 2011.30 On the occasion of the visit to Police Station 11, the Joint Commission inspected 20 files of Hamburg public prosecution office relating to the investigations against officers. The Joint Commission made statements to the Authority for the Interior and Sport with regard to two incidents. Indications emerge from one of the files that police officers had ordered a reporting party who had been apprehended on suspicion of a narcotics crime, following a physical search, to undress and to walk up and down in front of the officers in the so-called “waddling gait”. The public prosecution office had discontinued the investigation proceedings for coercion since no means of coercion within the meaning of section 240 subsection (1) of the Criminal Code had been used, but had left it open as to whether such an order had been given. The Joint Commission requested a statement from the Authority for the Interior and Sport as to 30 Annual Report 2010/2011, loc. cit., pp. 72 et seqq. 86