CAT/OP/ROU/1/Add.1 Against the measures taken by the prison, relating to the exercise of the rights provided for in Law no. 254/2013, the convicted persons may file complaint to the judge for supervising the deprivation of liberty, within 10 days from the date when they became aware of the action taken, in accordance with the Law. We would like to underline that the mechanism for the protection of detainees was repeatedly appreciated by the European Court of Human Rights as being an efficient protection mechanism. In this sense, the Strasbourg Court has found that a complaint filed to the judge for supervising the deprivation of liberty is an efficient remedy in the situations in which they refer to specific aspects of serving the custodial sentences, e.g. the access of a detainee to medical assistance, disciplinary measures, harassment of a detainee because of his/her ethnical origin3. Such an internal mechanism was appreciated by the European Court at Strasbourg as being in concordance with the admissibility criteria of an individual application, stipulated by the article 35 paragraph 1 in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Therefore, the complaint filed to the judge for supervising the deprivation of liberty and, subsequently, the appeal before the court against the minute delivered by the judge for supervising the deprivation of liberty shall be deemed domestic remedies in the sense of the European Convention which a person deprived of freedom must exhaust before applying to the European Court of human Rights. At police level, first of all, we underline that there is no subordination between detention facility personnel and judicial police officers. Furthermore, as it has already shown (see the answer provided at the recommendation of the paragraph 54 let. a) from the SPT report), the investigation is led by independent professionals of magistrate status. Any such complaint is forwarded to the competent prosecutor’s office and any actions executed by policemen are strictly supervised by the prosecutor. Judicial police officers are held accountable to prosecutors and are independent of their police hierarchical chiefs in judicial matters, according to the provisions of Law no. 364/2004 on the organization and functioning of the judicial police (especially art. 8 of this law). Another relevant normative framework is that of the Government Ordinance no. 27/2002 on the regulation of the activity of solving petitions. Petition means the application, the complaint, the referral or the proposal formulated in writing or sent by e-mail, that a citizen or a legaly constituted organization may apply to the public authorities and central and local public institutions, decentralized public services of ministries and other central bodies, companies and national corporations, comercial companies of the county or local interest, as well as autonomous administrations. In conclusion, any person, including the inmate, has the possibility to make petitions addressed to the management body of the prison, to the judge for supervising the deprivation of liberty, to the courts, to the NGOs which activate in the field of defending human rights, the National Preventive Mechanism within the institution of the Ombudsman, as well as to other public authorities and institutions. F. Health Para. 60 As far as the aspects within the SPT report are concerned on the fact that “the initial medical examination of persons deprived of liberty was superficial and the description of the health status was incomplete”, we should clarify that upon 3 Decision on 17th December 2013, in the case of Szemkovics v. România, no. 27117/08, § 24, decision on 20 May 2014, in the case of Matei v. România, no. 26244/10, § 36-39, inadmissibility decision on 2nd february 2016, in the case of Șopârlă v. România, no. 76884/12. 21