VISITS BY THE JOINT COMMISSION only shower in their underpants out of a sense of shame or for religious reasons, something which staff in the general prison service also reported. The Joint Commission therefore recommends partitioning off at least one shower in such a way that at the very least a person’s genital area is covered. These precautions have been taken in other facilities and have not led to an increase in the number of attacks on account of it not being possible to get a good overview of the entire shower room. Response: It is true that the shower rooms have no partitions between the individual showers. This is due to the fact that the partitions – which leave showers open at the front – can, at best, only partially respect a person’s sense of shame, and that fitting shower cubicles would not meet security requirements. In addition, experience has shown that practically every item of inventory which some detainees do not regard as absolutely essential and which cannot be adequately secured to prevent removal is wilfully damaged. Nonetheless, the facility meets the requirements of those who feel a sense of shame. For example, they are permitted to shower in their underpants (in the manner of swimwear) and can then hand these in to the laundry. Anyone who does not feel that this sufficiently protects their privacy has the option of having the communal shower room assigned to them for their sole use for a certain amount of time. Given that detainees have unrestricted access to the shower room at all times during unlocking times, seven days a week, this need does not in fact generally arise in practice. able, in carefully considered, substantiated and documented individual cases, to permit unrestricted monitoring of a cell where there is an acute danger of selfharm or suicide. The person concerned must at any rate be informed of the fact that optical surveillance is 63 in operation. During the delegation’s visit the head of the facility suggested that a small sticker be placed on the camera lens in order to cover up the relevant area. The delegation welcomed this simple and practicable suggestion and asks to be informed as soon as it has been implemented. Response: The recommendation that the private and intimate sphere of detainees awaiting deportation who are placed in the specially secured room be protected when they are going to the toilet is being implemented. Mechanical means have been applied to ensure that the camera in the room does not film the toilet. Further, there are plans to appropriately inform detainees placed in the room of the fact that optical surveillance is in operation. At the time of the visit the facility very much resembled a prison: The grounds are surrounded by high prison walls and barbed wire, and some of the windows, such as those in the kitchen in the women’s unit, have perforated sheets in front of them. This conflicts with the aforementioned principle that custody pending deportation must differ significantly from penal detention. In other pre-deportation detention facilities, such as Ingelheim Detention Centre for Persons Required to Leave the Country, such measures, for instance the barbed wire fence, have already been removed. The Joint Commission therefore recommends reconsidering the need for these structural measures. Response: The extensive structural measures are due to the well-known circumstance that the facility was not designed to enforce custody pending deportation, but that it was a prison which had to be rededicated at very short notice. The Ministry would ask the Joint Commission to understand, not least given the limited financial resources available within the prison system, that extensive renovation and dismantling measures will not be carried out until a final decision has been taken on the long-term use to which the property is to be put. However, the Ministry points out that certain measures for securing the building and the grounds will be essential in the long term in order to be able to guarantee the purpose of custody pending deportation. The attempt by one detainee awaiting deportation to flee the facility a few months ago made this need clear. There are no partitions between the individual showers in the shower rooms which the Joint Commission inspected. Even though unlocking times are relatively long, this means that some detainees will 63 Further suggestions for improving the conditions of detention The delegation found during its visit that detainees awaiting deportation in Mühldorf Prison were wearing prison clothing. In order to adapt the conditions of detention as much as possible to normal life, it should be ensured that detainees awaiting deportation are able to wear their own clothes. They should also be given the opportunity to wash these clothes. The Joint Commission would like to point out that the Strategy for Transforming Mühldorf Prison provides for the following: “Detainees awaiting deportation are entitled, under sections 173 and 174 of the Prison Act, amongst other things, to use their own clothing, underwear and bedding if they are able to carry the costs of cleaning, mending and regularly replacing these items.” The Joint Commission would welcome the timely implementation of this regulation, especially since all the other pre-deportation detention facilities it has previously visited allow detainees to wear their own clothes. Response: Compliance with section 173 of the Prison Act, which provides that detainees are to be permitted to wear their own clothes, amongst other things, if they themselves cf. National Agency, Annual Report 2013, p. 27–28 60