Reaction: Implementation would necessitate considerable conversion measures. After the preventive detention building had been completed, however, department E would be occupied with criminal convicts, and detention in accommodation groups could be implemented there. The Commission noticed that a large number of inmates were being held in solitary confinement. 13 persons were in solitary confinement on the day of the visit, two of whom had been there for more than three months. There were a total of five cases of solitary confinement totalling more than three months in 2011, whilst there were three cases in 2010. According to the prison governor, solitary confinement was ordered amongst other things if an inmate had been violent, in the event of positive urine checks and if an inmate refused to undergo such tests. Inmates stated in interviews that they had the impression that solitary confinement was used by the prison as a disciplinary measure. The ordering of solitary confinement was to be handled in such a way that the nature and purpose of the measures was also made clear to the inmates. It is also necessary to examine the maintenance of solitary confinement at much shorter intervals than had previously been the case. The prison governor stated that he would take up and examine the latter suggestion. Furthermore, some quite considerable gaps in documentation were revealed when looking through some of the files of the inmates who were being held in solitary confinement. Reaction: The large number of inmates in solitary confinement was caused by the fact that inmates had been separated from the other inmates because of consuming hard drugs or refusing to submit a urine sample. This practice had now been changed. In cases of the use of violence, it was examined whether solitary confinement was to be ordered, and also whether the inmate could be transferred to another prison or department. Furthermore, the maintenance of the measure was examined after one week at most. Shortcomings in the keeping of the files had been remedied. The common showers which were inspected by the Commission did make a very clean, cared-for overall impression. However, the shower areas were not separated from one another with a sight guard. Reaction: The order had been given to install partitions. The furniture in the cells that were inspected by the Joint Commission did not meet the requirements in some cases and should be replaced: The beds did not have a slatted frame, but only consisted of a board placed into the bed frame on which the mattress was placed. This is unlikely to meet health requirements. Furthermore, the lockers in the cells that were inspected were dented and worn. 48