proved by the fact that the members of the Special Preventive Group themselves were subjected to the screening procedure. In accordance with the Imprisonment Code, the members of the Special Preventive Group do not need to present a special authorisation to enter and their admission is governed by a different rule. However, the members of the Special Preventive Group agreed to undergo illegal and unjustified inspection requested by the prison staff. The members agreed so that they could document the practice of illegal and unjustified inspection of those who are authorised to enter a penitentiary establishment. The interesting circumstances of this incident are described below. On 26 January 2017, in establishment no. 5, the members of the Special Preventive Group were requested to undergo full bodily search. The director of the establishment explained to them that they had to undergo inspection with a special scanner when entering and leaving the premises of the establishment. When the Group members declined, the administration offered them full bodily search as an alternative. The director, the deputy director and the establishment’s lawyer invoked some ambiguous order that was put up in a visible spot at the entrance. According to the document, if a person at the control area of the penitentiary establishment refused to undergo screening with the use of a scanner, he/she had to undergo full search when entering and leaving the establishment. As it was found out later, the document put up in the visible sport was not an order but a draft order, which has not been approved to date. For the monitoring purposes, the members of the Special Preventive Group obliged with the requests and underwent screening with a scanner. In the noon, when temporarily leaving and returning establishment no. 5, due to their refusal to go through screening by the scanner, the members of the Special Preventive Group were requested to undergo the following inspection. In an isolated room equipped with a surveillance camera, the female members of the group were asked to remove their shoes, turn their pockets inside out and stretch their brassieres to allow inspection; while dressed they were patted down manually and checked with a metal detector. The male members of the group were asked to remove their shoes, turn their pockets inside out and have them examined. The members of the Special Preventive Group were told that considering their status an exception was made and as an alternative to screening by a scanner full body search was used, which implies taking off the clothes. The Public Defender observes that the above incident proves the fact that the provisions of the statutes of penitentiary establishments concerning those entering the establishments are not followed in practice. The utmost concern of the Public Defender is caused by the fact that prisoners’ short- and long-term visitors are subjected to routine checks of their personal items and clothing rather than basing inspections on reasonable suspicion. Particularly alarming is the fact that those entering the penitentiary establishment are illegally requested to undergo partial (strip) searches. After the above-mentioned incident, the Public Defender addressed the Minister of Corrections in a letter and requested an appropriate follow-up.96 In response to the letter, the 96 58 Letter of the Public Defender of Georgia sent to the Minister of Corrections of Georgia on 13 March 2017 (registered under no. 03-3/3330 at the Office of the Public Defender). HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATION IN CLOSED INSTITUTIONS