recommendations contained in the NPM reports as regards prisons, correctional and detention facilities were discussed and endorsed by the working group. The working group endorsed a comprehensive approach to the amendments and supplements to the Execution of Punishments and Remand in Custody Act, Liability of the State and Municipalities for Damage Act, Criminal Code, Criminal Procedure Code and Administrative Proecdure Code. The more important ones concern the following:         A clear definition of “poor conditions” in places of imprisonment and custody facilities and introducing the standard of 4 sq.m.; Expanding the powers of the bodies in charge of execution of punishments as regards initial distribution of inmates and determining the initial penitentiary treatment; Introducing more flexible rules for transferring inmates from one prison to another or within the same prison with a view to making a more rational use of the available capacity in places of detention and avoiding overcrowding; Introduicng a new approach for determining penitentiary treatment in cases of life imprisonment and life imprisonment without parole; the head of the prison shall have the discretion to impose strict penitentiary treatment at any time in accordance with the inmate’s conduct; Introducing the standard of absolute necessity in cases implying use for force, aids or arms; Introducing a preventive remedy, a procedure whereby persons deprived of their liberty may terminate a violation of their rights. It accommodates proceedings for protection against unfounded acts or omissions of the administration under the Administrative Code of Procedure (Article 250 et seq. and 256-257) to special proceedings for reviewing applications filed by people depived of their liberty; Introducing a specific remedy in the State and Municipalities Liability for Damage Act for people deprived of their liberty or remanded in custody to compensate damage sustained in violation of the prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment by the execution of punishments bodies. A less strict application of the principle affirmanti incumbit probatio is envisaged – the burden of proof on the claimant should not be excessive; s/he is required to present available evidence but he major burden of proof falls upon the body in charge of execution of punishments; The Ombudsman considers the amendments to the State and Municipalities Liability for Damage Act a positive step in implementing the general measures prescribed by the Strasbourg Court. In general these amendments introduce a specific remedy available to persons deprived of their liberty or remanded in custody to compensate for damage incurred by a violation of the prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment on the part of execution of punishments bodies. The Ombudsman acting as NPM supports the introduction of a compensatory remedy but is concerned whether the length of proceedings under the State and Municipalities Liability for Damage Act would provide redress (compensation) within a reasonable time. Claims will be reviewed under the Administrative Porcedure Code, which largely complies with the criteria for an effective compensatory remedy. However, there is a potential risk that administrative courts get overloaded with claims for compensation due to the current detention conditions and proceedings grind to a halt. This is why the NPM is of the opinion that the legislator should reconsider the establishment of an independent administrative body to provide compensations to people deprived of their liberty in a fast, accessible and friendly manner; 26