Rule 63 A prisoner shall never be punished twice for the same act or conduct. Executive Penal Code (Dz.U. of 1997, No 90, item 557, as amended) Article 7 (1) A convict may challenge the decision of the Chief Judge or an authorised judge, penitentiary judge, director of the penitentiary unit, pre-trial detention centre, as well as regional director and General Director of the Prison Service or a person administering other penitentiary unit specified by executive penal law and penitentiary commission or a probation officer, due to its incompliance with law, unless the Act provides otherwise. Article 142.(1) A convict is subject to disciplinary responsibility for the intentional violation of an injunction or prohibition arising from a legal act, the rules and regulations or other stipulations adopted pursuant to a legal act or the order established in the penal institution or in the workplace, hereinafter referred to as “offence”. § 2. If a disciplinary offence bears the hallmarks of criminal offence, a convict is subject to disciplinary responsibility, unless the offence was made outside the penal institution. Article 145. (1) Imposing a disciplinary penalty, the degree of culpability and an individualization rule shall be taken into account, bearing in mind, in particular, type and circumstances of an act, attitude towards the offence, previous attitude, features of character and health condition of a convict, as well as educational objectives. § 2. Before imposing a disciplinary penalty an accused person shall be heard, as well as the ward supervisor’s opinion, and where necessary, also the opinion of a person filing an application for imposing a penalty and opinions of other persons, as well as testimonies of the witnesses. Proceedings may take place in the presence of other convicts, if supervisory aspects do require. Article 146. (1) One disciplinary penalty shall be imposed only for one offence. If a convict committed more offences before being punished for any of them, he/she should receive one punishment, proportionally more severe. § 2. Repeated imposition of a disciplinary penalty must not take place in a way that makes it a direct prolongation of serving the same penalty, unless the total period of imposed penalties exceeds a presupposed period of the penalty. § 3. In cases justified by educational aspects, the penitentiary court may refrain from a disciplinary punishment, suspend the execution of an imposed penalty for up to three months, change it into a less severe one or pardon. After the period of suspension, an imposed penalty shall be deemed executed. During each visit made by the National Preventive Mechanism, particular attention was paid to the question of disciplinary responsibility. It results from interviews made, that the most frequent problem is the failure to inform convicts about the possibility to challenge a disciplinary penalty imposing decision to the penitentiary court (PDC Warszawa-Grochów, PDC in Choszczno, Prisons in Goleniów and Rzeszów-Załęże). However, in the majority of visited penitentiary units, the interviewed prisoners covered by disciplinary responsibility made no complaints. These persons indicated that before the imposition of a disciplinary penalty they had been heard by the director of a unit and instructed about the possibility to challenge the court's decision.