The supervisory authority did not report anything with regard to the reduction of the length of stay in the arrivals department. It must furthermore be noted concerning accommodation in the reception wing that the Commission did not primarily complain that the patients do not receive any therapeutic measures in the admission wing, although this would be welcome. The Commission, rather, complained about the general living and accommodation conditions in the arrivals department, such as the constructional and staffing circumstances, which as a rule led to the patients being locked up during the day. The Commission shares the opinion of the supervisory authority that – as already stated in the initial report – locking up during the day could not be justified simply by referring to staff shortages. The Commission therefore explicitly welcomes the fact that a part of the 2011 clinic budget is to be used to improve the staffing of Building 16. Reaction: The duration of the stay in accordance with section 126a of the Code of Criminal Procedure could not be influenced by the Ministry of Health, Equalities, Care and Ageing of the Land North Rhine-Westphalia, but depended on the duration of the criminal proceedings. It was only when the court ordered accommodation in accordance with section 63 or 64 of the Criminal Code in the judgment and the clinic was informed of this ruling that the latter could initiate the transfer to a treatment wing. A transfer then took place within a few days as a rule. The report of November 2011 had for instance already described one case in which, of a stay in the admission wing totalling 101 days, 90 days were accounted for by temporary accommodation. This meant that the patient in question had been transferred ten days after the judgment had become known. 90 days were hence taken up by the duration of the criminal proceedings. Because of the responsibility of the public prosecution offices for investigation and of the independence of the courts, the Ministry was hence unable to exert an influence in the sense that a transfer to a treatment wing would take place from four to six weeks after standard detention. Contrary to the first statement made by the financing entity28, the Commission had in fact encountered a patient who was locked in his room in the admission wing. This also corresponds to the content of the report of the visit drawn up in situ and the situation as it was found. The patient was locked in his room at the time of the inspection visit. It was only when the Commission asked to speak with the patient that the staff opened the door. When talking with the Commission, the patient stated that he had been held in the arrivals department of the LWL Centre for ten days and that he had been locked up in his room during that period apart from breakfast and his twice-daily outdoor exercise. Staff from the arrivals department confirmed this statement to the Commission. The staff fur28 cf. Annual Report 2010/11, loc. cit., p. 56. 80