Warsaw-Grochów. Each time when the visiting persons did not find such a cell, they recommended the adjustment of at least one cell for women and men to the needs of such persons, as well as the adjustment of some shower stands (PDC in Koszalin). The visiting persons each time verified also whether the prisoners were not accommodated in overcrowded cells. According to information obtained from Directors of visited units, overcrowding did not take place or was minimal. Prisoners were accommodated in conditions meeting the standard of 3 m2 of the cell area per person, in accordance with Article 110 of the Executive Penal Code.Findings made by NPM employees during visits often showed that overcrowding does not exist only in statistical terms. Such situation triggers other improper practices. For example, seven entertainment rooms at the PDC in Wrocław were transformed into cells. Only one entertainment room functioned in PDC in Koszalin and entertainment rooms in Wards II, III and IV of PDC in Wejherowo were temporarily transformed into cells as well. Infirmaries, isolated cells and transition cells were also adapted for the purpose of prisoners’ accommodation (PDC in Choszczno). In the prison in Rzeszów, rooms of Ward IX for prisoners posing a serious threat to the society or a threat to prison safety (the so-called “dangerous prisoners”) were used for prisoners not qualified to this group.According to information obtained from the Director of the establishment, such actions were undertaken due to limited area and were supposed to provide adequate living space to prisoners. In the view of NPM, due to special discipline and safeduards in the ward for “dangerous prisoners”, prisoners from other groups should not be accommodated there.PDC in Wejherowo did not have a ward for persons in pre-trial detention. The information provided by the Director of the establishment reveals that such practice facilitiated the appropriate accommodation of prisoners according to administering bodies’ recommendations and mitigates the problem of overcrowding. During the inspection, the persons visiting the establishment also found cases where prisoners from different classification subgroups were accommodated in the same cell (e.g. P-1 with P-2 and P-3, R-1 with R-2 and R3).Such practice, in the view of the National Preventive Mechanism, also requires verification, since it leads to an ungrounded limitation of the rights of persons qualified by the penitentiary commission to serve the penalty in half-open or open establishments. Due to the overcrowding observed during the NPM visit, on 1 April 2010 the Human Rights Defender filed a petition to the Minister of Justice41 requesting the Ministry of Justice to take action aimed at eliminating overcrowding in prisons and pre-trial detention centres. The Defender indicated that new legal acts42 had introduced procedures to prevent overcrowding in penitentiary establishments, however, the performance of this task met with considerable obstacles. In the Defender’s view, constant and high financial expenditure is needed to improve conditions in the penitentiary sector. On the other hand, current jurisprudence of criminal courts and the lack of creating an adequate number of new accommodation places in prisons, as well as the application of the provisions of both abovementioned legal acts may entail the                                                              41 RPO-515967-VII/10 Act of 9 October 2009 amending the Act – Executive Penal Code (Dz.U. of 2009, No 190, item 1475) and Ordinance of the Minister of Justice of 25 November 2009 on the mode of competent authorities dealing with the situation where the number of prisoners in prisons and pre-trial detention centres exceeds the overall capacity of these establishments in the national scale (Dz.U. of 2009, No 202, item 1564), resulting thereof. 42