Publication highlights measures to ensure that immigration detainees are accommodated instead in centres specifically designed for that purpose, meeting the criteria set out by the Committee. In their response, the German authorities underline that in nearly all of the Länder concerned, immigration detainees are kept separate from prisoners and that in some, detention pending deportation is enforced in entirely distinct facilities. Given the low numbers involved, the current situation is considered appropriate; the authorities argue in particular that accommodation in a prison allows detainees to benefit from the various care services (such as psychologists, health care or social welfare staff). As for the recommendations made in the visit report concerning material conditions, the regime and visits at the unit for immigration detainees at Munich-Stadelheim Prison, the German authorities state that renovation work has been carried out, recreational activities enhanced and the visit entitlement increased from one hour to four hours per month. 71. As regards the situation of persons subject to preventive detention (“Sicherungsverwahrung”), the delegation found that the differentiation between preventive detention and the execution of prison sentences, as ­enshrined in German law (Abstandsgebot), was not being effectively implemented at Freiburg Prison at the time of the visit. The conditions of detention of the persons ­concerned were scarcely better than those of sentenced prisoners and there was a shortage of psychological care and therapeutic activities. This was acknowledged by the establishment’s management, and steps were already being taken to improve the situation. The CPT’s visit took place at a time when the entire system of preventive detention in Germany was undergoing major reform, in the light of recent judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and the German Constitutional Court. In their response, the German authorities describe in detail the new projects of the different Länder for the enforcement of preventive detention. 72. The report notes that surgical castration is applied to sentenced sex offenders in a few Länder, in rare cases. The CPT makes clear its fundamental objections to the use of surgical castration as a means of treatment of sex offenders and has recommended that this intervention be discontinued, in that context, in all Länder. In their response, the German authorities state that they do not share the CPT’s views and, in particular, refer to scientific evidence of the effectiveness of surgical castration to prevent reoffending. Nevertheless, they indicate that it is currently being reviewed whether this issue should be discussed in the context of a debate involving representatives of several disciplines, and also with regard to ethical aspects. Report and response published February 2012, CPT/Inf (2012) 6 and CPT/Inf (2012) 7 29