VISITS BY THE JOINT COMMISSION graffiti. Prisoners are always asked to pay to have the graffiti removed and the detention rooms are renovated directly. The house rules are written using language which juveniles can readily understand. However, they are only available in German. According to the head of the facility, an interpreter is called in in those rare cases when someone is unable to speak (sufficient) German. The interpreter then translates and explains the content of the relevant documents. Also, some of the staff speak Polish. Despite the fact that the number of prisoners who do not speak German is small, the Joint Commission suggests translating the house rules into a larger number of languages commonly spoken by prisoners. The house rules in particular include explanations of duties, which are important for prisoners and at the same time inform them of their rights. Non-Germanspeaking prisoners should therefore also be able to understand them straight away. Response: The translation of the house rules into the most frequently spoken foreign languages was regulated by law in Brandenburg for the first time in 2013 (section 114, Prison Act of Brandenburg). Corresponding procedures have already been discussed with the heads of facilities in Brandenburg. Since these translations are very expensive, the first step will be to elaborate joint framework rules for all prisons in Brandenburg which will then serve as the basis for the translation. The work on revising the framework rules will be carried out soon. The visiting delegation inspected the building housing pre-trial detainees, including the residential groups, the sanitary facilities, infirmary, courtyard, visitors’ room and the kitchen. It also inspected the secure, disciplinary detention and observation ward, including two specially secured rooms. Finally, it inspected the building housing the Juvenile Penal Institution, including residential groups, a detention cell and a group room in the social therapy unit. The delegation held private meetings with staff in various units, including the medical service, as well as with the pastoral worker. It also spoke with eight juveniles in various units and residential groups, and it inspected documentation relating to placements in the specially secured room. 2.4.1 – Recommendations and response Placement in the specially secured room was ordered 37 times in 2013, placement in solitary confinement 24 times. In the first six months of 2014 placement in the specially secured room was ordered 16 times, placement in solitary confinement 20 times. The number of special precautions ordered is higher than in other comparable facilities the Joint Commission has visited. The Joint Commission therefore asks for it to be examined for what reasons these measures were ordered. Response: Pursuant to section 74 of the Hamburg Act on the Execution of Youth Imprisonment, special precautions may be ordered where, based on the prisoner’s conduct or on account of his mental state, there is an increased risk of flight or the risk of violence against persons or property or a risk of suicide or self-harm. Further, solitary confinement is only permissible under section 74 (3), first sentence, of the Hamburg Act on the Execution of Youth Imprisonment where it is indispensable for the aforementioned reasons. The measure may only last as long as is absolutely necessary. The prisoner concerned is visited at close intervals and a member of staff examines whether the measure can be lifted. Staff from various specialist disciplines (psychological and medical service, prison manager, prison unit manager, shift manager, head of the security service) visit the prisoner. The Juvenile Penal Institution has analysed the prisoner files and concluded that these measures were ordered after prisoners had attacked other people and there was a risk that they would carry out further violent attacks. The measures were also ordered when prisoners had harmed themselves, or they had announced/threatened self-harm or even suicide. It is not possible to assess to what extent the number of times these measures were ordered is comparable with cases in other juvenile institutions. The facility in Hahnöfersand Prison accommodates only relatively few young pre-trial detainees and juvenile detainees given the total prison population in Hamburg. This small group comprises young, often 2.3.2 – Positive findings There is a good atmosphere in all the areas the delegation inspected, which is in particular reflected in the extremely relaxed manner of communication between prisoners and staff. Staff were without exception all motivated. This was also reflected in specific details, for example in the friendly yet youthappropriate language in which the house rules have been written. 2.4 – HAHNÖFERSAND JUVENILE PENAL INSTITUTION, 17 JUNE 2014 The Joint Commission visited the Juvenile Penal Institution in Hahnöfersand Juvenile Institution on 17 June 2014. The Juvenile Penal Institution is responsible for enforcing pre-trial detention and custody pending deportation against male juveniles as well as youth imprisonment. The Juvenile Penal Institution has a capacity of 176 and was holding a total of 100 prisoners at the time of the visit. One juvenile was being detained in the specially secured room with no dangerous objects on the day of the visit. 38