introduced in a ward for patients towards whom a preventive measure under reinforced security conditions are applied, a patient may use a phone in a service room only in the case of an incoming call, at specified hours, three times a day and, in accordance with paragraph 22, such call can last only 3 minutes. It needs to be indicated that as regards the prohibition to use cell phones and make outgoing calls on the phone at a service room, the opportunity to maintain contacts with the family was limited (Regional Psychiatric Hospital in Lubiąż). In another hospital NPM visitors were informed that “detained” patients were not granted passes (Independent Regional Public Hospital in Gorzów Wielkopolski). The problem of granting passes to persons towards whom a preventive measure under basic security conditions is applied was many times a subject of the Human Rights Defender’s actions. It needs to be noted, that although the Ordinance laying down the list (...) does not contain regulations concerning passes or breaks in the application of a preventive measure, the "detainees" towards whom a preventive measure under basic security conditions was ordered, in accordance with Article 10(4) of the aforementioned Ordinance, should stay in general wards and observe regulations in force in a given ward, which can regulate, among others, the issues of granting passes and can entitle a director of an establishment to grant passes to detainees (cf. Decision of the Supreme Court of 28 September 200688).Additionally, in the same Ordinance, apart from a statement that regulations of the Executive Penal Code, specified in Chapter XIII, concerning the application of preventive measures, [do not entitle the District Court] to examine applications (…) to adjudicate a break in the application, the Supreme Court has ruled that faultiness of proceedings conducted by the District Court as regards the examination of applications (...) to be granted a pass in the course of the execution (...) of a preventive measure also resulted from the failure to take into account the Ordinance of the Minister of Health of 10 August 2004 laying down the list of psychiatric and rehabilitation centres, issued pursuant to Article 201(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Pursuant to Article 10(4) of the said Ordinance, in the facilities with basic security conditions, the provisions of the rules of organisation and order of these facilities shall apply. These rules can (...) entitle the director of a facility to decide in the matter of granting passes to detainees. An unfavourable decision can be appealed against before the penitentiary court (...) in the mode specified in Article 7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.In reply, the Director of the Hospital in Gorzów Wielkopolski indicated that the ban on granting passes to detainees is compliant with the guidelines issued by the Head of Penitentiary Department in Gorzów Wielkopolski. In his view, granting passes to patients posing a serious threat to the environment and who are detained by a court decision is contradictory to public interest and the purpose of detention. When premises for detention are removed, the medical practitioners apply for its annulment to court. In the opinion of the National Preventive Mechanism, this position is contradictory to the abovementioned regulations and the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court89. f) Right to complaint                                                              88 89 Case ref. I KZP 23/06. I KZP 23/06