It is also in the interests of both prisoners and prison staff that clear disciplinary procedures be both formally established and applied in practice; any grey zones in this area involve the risk of unofficial (and uncontrolled) systems developing. Usually, according to the existing practice, a disciplinary penalty is applied without an oral hearing and an order on its application is only substantiated with explanations and reports submitted by the personnel. Prisoners practically do not participate in disciplinary proceedings. This increases the risk for the imposition of arbitrary disciplinary penalties. It is therefore imperative that prisoners are adequately informed about the disciplinary procedure and their rights. Prisoners should be afforded sufficient time and opportunity to defend themselves, hire lawyers and offered explanations. Prisoners should be able to bring witnesses and adduce evidence (among them, they should be able to request surveillance recordings and their examination), and pose questions to those employees whose reports served as the basis for instituting disciplinary proceedings. Under the Nelson Mandela Rules, prisoners shall have an opportunity to seek judicial review of disciplinary sanctions imposed against them.208 In 2016, in total, 4,838 disciplinary penalties were imposed on prisoners in penitentiary establishments. Out of this number, 43 decisions209 were contested before a court. In 2015, prisoners contested 38 decisions.210 Out of the above-mentioned 43 cases of contesting the decisions about disciplinary penalties by prisoners, on 7 occasions a court partially upheld a claim and fully upheld a claim on 4 occasions. Furthermore, 9 claims have been rejected; 7 claims have not been admitted for the consideration of merits; on 2 occasions, claims have not been admitted due to a defect in application; in 4 cases, proceedings were discontinued; the outcomes of three cases are unknown; and the consideration of 7 claims is still pending. Stemming from the above-mentioned, it can be concluded that while, compared to the previous year, the practice of contesting disciplinary measures by prisoners before a court is slightly increased. Prisoners still rarely challenge decisions about imposition of disciplinary penalties. This can be preconditioned by several factors such as lack of information about their rights, failure to involve prisoners in disciplinary proceedings, lack of legal aid, court fees, and most importantly by hopelessness. Such a situation increases the risk of arbitrariness on the part of the administration of a penitentiary establishment. The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture observes that the possibility to listen to radio and watch television should not be regarded as a privilege and should be afforded to each prisoner.211 Under Article 20.2 of the Imprisonment Code, ‘remand/convicted persons, except for those placed in a solitary cell, may be granted the right to listen to radio and watch TV during non-work times, as determined by the internal regulations of the detention/prison facility. With the consent of the administration and according to 208 Rule 41.4. 209 7 decisions from establishment no. 2 were contested before a court; 8 from establishment no. 3; 2 from establishment no. 5; 22 from establishment no. 6; 2 from establishment no. 7; 1 from establishment no. 9; and 1 from establishment no. 16. 210 From establishments nos. 2, 3, 5, 7, and 9. 211 Available at: <http://www.cpt.coe.int/documents/geo/2015-42-inf-eng.pdf> [Last visited on 20.02.2017] NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM (NPM), 2016 101