Annual Report 2012: Spain’s National Preventive Mechanism books in which these measures are recorded and some of the files of inmates to whom they had been applied. The notifications to the Parole Judge do not specify the causes that give rise to the adoption of these measures The frequency of their application does not correspond to what should be exceptional The period of time during which the limitations are applied is excessive 92 105. First of all, during the inspection visit to the Ocaña II prison (Toledo), it was noted that the notifications to the Parole Judge regarding application of Ar­ ticle 75.1 of Prison Regulations did not specify the exact causes that gave rise to adopting the measures. Instead, standard forms were used which only indicated that the measure had been taken for «the security and good order of the estab­ lishment». According to information provided by inmates and confirmed by the Director, when an inmate’s mobile phone is seized, Article 75.1 of Prison Regula­ tions is systematically applied for about one month, after which a disciplinary proceeding is opened for possession of forbidden objects. In these cases applica­ tion of the article does not seem justified, bearing in mind that the rapid process­ ing of the disciplinary proceeding or the adoption of other less harmful measures could satisfy the intended objectives with greater guarantees for the inmate, and that the current systematic application turns out to be a double punishment for the same incidents, given that the time spent by inmates in solitary confinement is not even discounted. 106. In respect to the frequency with which Article 75.1 of Prison Regulations is applied, during the inspection visit to the Ocaña II prison (Toledo), it was noted that in 2012 and up to the date of the inspection (in the month of December), the said article was applied on 37 occasions to 33 inmates, which entails approxi­ mately 8% of inmates, taking into account occupancy at the prison on the day of the inspection visit. This figure does not seem to correspond to the exceptional nature of application, which must govern the use to this measure. In consequence, the SGIP has been told that it would be appropriate to review the circumstances in which the said article of Prison Regulations is applied. 107. In respect to the duration of this measure, in 2012 most of the cases in which it was used at the Ocaña II prison (Toledo) lasted about one month. Furthermore, although the Director of the prison stated that these regimental limitations are applied for a maximum period of one month, in six cases they lasted to six days more than one month. The limitations were even applied three successive times to one inmate, making a total of 3 months with only two days of respite. This period of time is much too long; in consequence application of Article 75.1 of Prison Regulations should also be reviewed in this matter. On the other hand, in 11 cases the regimental limitations only lasted one day, and even just a few hours. In these cases, there do not seem to be sufficient reasons to justify adopting such excep­ tional measures, for situations which, apparently, were quickly resolved, instead of recurring to other measures, such as provisional solitary confinement. At the Araba/Alava prison, the Director stated that normally this article is not applied for more than three days, although all of the inmates to whom the article was being applied at the time of the inspection had been in that situation for at least 9 days, with one that had even been subject to limitations for two and half months. THE OMBUDSMAN OF SPAIN