Long-term Deprivation of Liberty In both cases, it was verified that the prison staff as well as management person­ nel accompanied the inmates during the entire period of restraint. The SGIP has been In respect to the physical restraint carried out on an inmate at the Ocaña II pris­ on (Toledo), to whom several restraining measures were applied as a result of an aggression against another inmate, as mentioned in paragraph 104, said inmate’s medical records indicated that during the examination performed by the doctor the former did not show the aggressiveness and agitation which had led, accord­ ing to the prison staff, to the intervention, in spite of which the doctor gave the inmate injections of tranquilizers and neuroleptics. In this respect, the Ombuds­ man Institution has drawn the SGIP’s attention to the discrepancy detected be­ tween the physician’s report and the adoption of a measure, which is intended to be exceptional, namely injecting medication without the inmate’s consent. Ocaña II (Toledo) 104. The following general principle is established in Article 75.1 of Prison Reg­ ulations: «Persons arrested, sentenced and inmates shall not be subject to any regimental limitations other than those required to ensure their personal integ­ rity or for the security and good order of the establishments, as well as those deemed appropriate for their treatment or that stem from their classification level». In addition, Article 75.2 of the Prison Regulations provides for the adop­ tion of measures that entail regimental limitations, at the inmate’s request, in­ forming the Parole Judge thereof, where necessary to safeguard the inmate’s life or physical integrity. However, the criterion adopted by the SGIP in respect to the application of Article 75 of Prison Regulations does not correspond to the Om­ budsman Institution’s stance as expressed a few years ago and reiterated to the SGIP on occasion of these inspection visits. In this Institution’s opinion, the lit­ eral wording of said article must be respected, so that in all cases of regimental limitations adopted by virtue of said rule the sole motive should be ensuring the inmate’s physical integrity, and in the case of other objectives, the possibilities offered by regulations in force should be applied, including the application of a disciplinary regime, the use of restraining measures, a proposed classification level demotion, a change of module or department, or any other measure pro­ vided in penitentiary legislation. Otherwise, the protection mechanisms granted to inmates by penitentiary legislation would be seriously undermined. The sole motive of inmate In any case, the SGIP must comply with its Instruction 3/2010, of 6th March, on the protocol for action in security matters, whereby this article should only be applied in the case of serious incidents which entail a risk for the prison’s security and order, and the motives for said application must be clearly substantiated in the resolution for its application, with the affected inmate having the possibility to contest said application by means of an appeal. This measure must only be informed of the treatment in a case detected at regimental limitations must be to ensure their physical integrity applied in case of serious incidents, which affect the prison’s security and order The use of Article 75 of Prison Regulations was studied in depth at the prisons of Araba/Alava and Ocaña II (Toledo), including inmates to whom regimental lim­ itations were being applied on the basis of Article 75 and examination of the THE OMBUDSMAN OF SPAIN 91