6 – PRISONS 69 Constitutional Court. Whether or not prisoners have agreed to be detained together is irrelevant, as the fundamental right to human dignity is a protected 70 legal interest that cannot simply be dispensed with. According to the Federal Constitutional Court, “human dignity is inviolable and thus cannot be 71 restricted […] on the basis of a statutory provision”. However, pursuant to section 8 (2) sentence 1, Book One of the Baden-Württemberg Prison Code (JVollzGB I), multiple occupancy is permissible with the written consent of the prisoners, even if the sanitary facilities are not separate and do not have separate ventilation. The National Agency considers section 8 (2) JVollzGB I to be unconstitutional. This type of occupancy must be stopped as a matter of urgency. In 2017, the National Agency visited five prisons in Burg, Karlsruhe, Stuttgart, Berlin Tegel und Traunstein. In many of the visited facilities, the National Agency encountered conditions which constitute a violation of human dignity and have been declared unconstitutional by the Federal Constitutional Court. Some of these failings were down to structural factors such as the design or size of the prison cells. Karlsruhe Prison, for example, was built in 1897, and is structurally unsuitable for a prison system geared towards prisoners’ well-being. The same is true of Traunstein Prison. Division II of Tegel Prison is also unsuitable for the demands of a modern prison system. In order to ensure humane detention conditions, it is absolutely essential that these shortcomings are addressed. 6.2.2 – Cell size In both Karlsruhe Prison and Stuttgart Prison, multiple-occupancy was observed in undersized prison cells. The National Agency also criticised the practice of shared accommodation in Traunstein Prison due to the insufficient size of the cells. In order for detention conditions to be humane, a single-occupancy cell must have a floor space of at least six square metres, excluding the sanitary area. In cases where the sanitary area is not partitioned, one further square metre should be added for that area, giving a total floor space of at least seven square metres. For multiple-occupancy, a further four square metres of floor space must be added to this figure for each additional person, excluding the sanitary area. 6.1 – POSITIVE EXAMPLES The National Agency highlighted several positive examples during its visits. The wide range of exercise and employment opportunities, for example, is particularly positive, as are the long out-of-cell times, the provision of healthcare, and the number of locum doctors who offer regular office hours at Burg Prison in fields such as neurology, urology, orthopaedics and gastroenterology. Karlsruhe Prison operates without the use of means of restraint. Positive mention should also be made of the fact that staff at Karlsruhe Prison are developing an assistance guidebook which aims to facilitate communication between staff and prisoners whenever language barriers arise. 6.2.3 – Physical restraint In Tegel Prison, the National Agency recommended using a specific form in order to 72 document in detail the use of physical restraint. The documentation of coercive measures must be clear, detailed and complete. Furthermore, the measure must be documented in writing. This includes documenting which less severe measures have already been tried and an explanation of why they failed. 6.2 – FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The visited facilities were given recommendations on the following main topics: 6.2.1 – Multiple-occupancy cells 69 Federal Constitutional Court, decision of 22/02/2011, 1 BvR 409/09, margin no. 30. Federal Administrative Court, judgment of 17/10/2000, file no. 2 WD 12/00. 71 Federal Constitutional Court, decision by the Third Chamber of the Second Panel of 27/02/2002 – 2 BvR 553/01 -, NJW 2002, page 2699 et seq. 72 See chapter II. 4.4 – “Physical restraint”. A large number of cells in Karlsruhe Prison and Stuttgart Prison are shared by multiple prisoners, even though the cells do not have a fully partitioned toilet with separate ventilation. This constitutes a violation of human dignity according to the past decisions of the Federal 70 52