Long-term Deprivation of Liberty lar in respect to the possible appearance of emotional or depressive symptoms, by means of training courses or practice in the use of screening instruments. In addition, the prison should provide inmates with training to support the Suicide Prevention Program, as is done at the Murcia II prison. This deficiency has been detected in particular at the Araba/Alava prison. At the women’s prison of Barcelona, which is under the authority of the Govern­ ment of Catalonia, it was noted that there is no systematic application of a pro­ gram to detect the risk of suicide, and that there is no specific protocol for the prevention of suicides, something which should be corrected. It was noted that at the 100. The majority of the inmates interviewed did not express any objection to body searches and searches in their cells, full body searches not being frequent. However, during the inspection of the prison of A Lama (Pontevedra), a consid­ erable increase in recent years of the practice of strip searches was noted (15 in 2010, 27 in 2011 and 45 in 2012). Its use was motivated, amongst other circum­ stances, by suspicions of possession or introduction by inmates of forbidden sub­ stances, following communications with relatives or reentry following a period of leave. For the purpose of assessing whether the practice was justified or not, the Office of the SGIP has been requested to inform the Ombudsman Institution of the result obtained in each one of these strip searches, indicating the date, inmate, module, motives and whether any forbidden or toxic substance was found. During the inspection visit 101. During the inspection visits, a sample of the disciplinary proceedings pro­ cessed at each prison was examined. The criterion used in selecting the files was the application of restraining measures to the inmates and /or processing of sev­ eral disciplinary proceedings against the same inmate. In all of them, it was veri­ fied that they had been processed correctly and that the Parole Judge had been properly notified. The sanction that is most often imposed is depriving an inmate of group strolls and recreational activities, followed by solitary confinement, ei­ ther in the inmate’s own cell –if it is single– or in the special secure detention department or module. In the disciplinary 102. Likewise, as indicated in paragraph 140 of the 2011 Annual Report, the use of restraining measures is analyzed in the course of the inspection visits: review of records, review of individual cases and verification of the circum­ stances, duration of the measure, verification of supervision and control during the application of the measure, and verification that the Parole Judge was in­ formed of application of the restraining measure. Provisional solitary confine­ ment is the restraining measure most commonly employed; physical restraints are rarely used, and physical force, handcuffs and aerosol sprays are even more rare (there was only one case in which the latter was used at the prison of A Lama, Pontevedra). Provisional solitary THE OMBUDSMAN OF SPAIN women’s prison in Barcelona it is not applied systematically to the prison of A Lama (Pontevedra) a considerable increase in the practice of strip searches was noted proceedings examined, it was verified that the Parole Judge had been properly informed confinement is the restraining measure used most often 89