Long-term Deprivation of Liberty 108. In connection with the prison regimes resulting from application of Arti­ cle 75.1 of Prison Regulations, in the course of the inspection visits to the prisons of Araba/Alava and Ocaña II (Toledo) it was verified that contrary to the provi­ sions of the aforementioned Instruction 3/2010, said application entailed a regime similar to that of solitary confinement sanctions or the secure detention regime, however without the same procedural guarantees offered by the latter. At the Ocaña II prison (Toledo) the measure was applied in the module for new inmates and solitary confinement and at the Araba/Alava prison it was normally carried out in the inmate admissions, release and transit modules –except for women, who stayed in their modules, but in specific cells–, and exceptionally in observation cells that will be described later on. In consequence, in both prisons inmates changed module and moved to cells with more security than ordinary cells (double doors with security locks, bookcase with no shelves), where they could only keep a limited number of belongings because the cells were searched frequently. Inmates had three, four or five hours in the courtyard, and spent the rest of their time in their cells, since they were not allowed to attend classes, workshops or engage in any other activity. In the case of the women at the Araba/ Alava prison, they were only allowed to go out to the courtyard for 3 hours, since they could not be there at the same time as the other inmates. In addition, one of the inmates interviewed at the Araba/Alava prison to whom Article 75 of Prison Regulations was being applied in a secure detention module observation cell stat­ ed that she had not been allowed to go out to the courtyard, which was confirmed by the inmate assistant guard. If that is correct, the «minimum of three hours daily in the courtyard» established in her notification of application of Article 75 of Prison Regulations was not complied with. Furthermore, at that prison –in contrast with the Ocaña II prison (Toledo)– inmates were not allowed to have television sets in their cells, which cannot be justified other than as an additional sanction to their situation. It was noted that the prison regime resulting from the application of limitations varies from one prison to another, and that in one case it was similar to the solitary confinement or secure detention regimes, but without the same procedural guarantees Courtyard of the inmate admissions module at the Araba/ Alava prison, where article 75 of Prison Photograph 17 Regulations is applied THE OMBUDSMAN OF SPAIN 93