In its Report to the Georgian Government on the visit to Georgia in 2015, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture reiterated its view that any restrictions on family contacts as a form of punishment should be used only where the offence relates to such contacts and only for the shortest time possible (days rather than weeks or months).236 The prohibition of the Imprisonment Code is more punitive than security-related. Accordingly, it is imperative to make the necessary amendment to the Imprisonment Code for comprehensive reflection of the above principles therein. As it has become known for the public, the Ministry of Corrections shares this position and it is planned to amend Imprisonment Code to the effect of allowing convicts serving sentence in high risk prison facilities one long term visit in a year and one additional visit as an incentive.237[2] The Public Defender welcomes this initiative and considers it a step forward. It is, however, needs mentioning that, while this information was made known during the deliberations on draft law on Amendment to the Imprisonment Code in the Parliament of Georgia, there was no such change displayed in the draft law in the period this Report was being prepared. The Public Defender expresses his hope that this initiative will be realised within the draft law on the Amendment to the Imprisonment Code and eventually the convicts in high-risk prison facilities will be able to avail long visits. Concerning the use of long visits, it should be noted that in those cases where a convict has been placed in a solitary confinement cell to serve disciplinary penalty, the prisoner forfeits his/her right to long visits for a year. Under Article 172.6 of the Imprisonment Code, convicted persons placed in a high risk prison facility, and convicted persons who are in quarantine, or those upon whom disciplinary measures and/or administrative detentions are imposed, shall not be granted the right to a long visit. The Public Defender observes that there is clearly a wrong interpretation of the aforementioned provision as this paragraph applies to the cases where a disciplinary penalty is imposed on a convict (the term of the disciplinary penalty has not expired). Accordingly, the restriction of the right to long visit should not apply to those cases where the penalty has been served even if the convict is still deemed to be a person upon whom disciplinary penalty is imposed. The Public Defender reiterates that maintaining family ties is not a privilege of a convicted person, therefore, enhancing contacts with the outside world should be considered to be a guiding principle. The same position is shared by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture.238 Furthermore, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture noted with concern that inmates are only entitled to a long visit once every six months, an entitlement they may lose in the event of disciplinary measures.239 236 Report to the Georgian Government on the visit to Georgia carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), from 5 to 15 February 2010, CPT/Inf, 2015, para. 119, available at: https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=09000016806961f8 [Last visited on 24.03.2017]. 237 http://www.moc.gov.ge/ka/pressamsakhuri/akhali-ambebi/article/22394-kakha-kakhishvili-msjavrdebulebi-ojakhthan-kavshirs-sheinarchuneben [Last visited on 28.03.2017]. 238 European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, CPT standards, p. 18, para. 51. 239 Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment on his mission to Georgia in 201, A/HRC/31/57/Add.3, para. 97. NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM (NPM), 2016 111