Paragraph 64 of the draft law on Amendment to the Imprisonment Code proposes a new wording of Article 90 of the Imprisonment Code to the effect of limiting the term of administrative detention (the proposed amendment uses the term disciplinary detention). The Public Defender welcomes decreasing the term of administrative detention. This issue is discussed in detail in the Parliamentary Reports by the Public Defender of 2014 and 2015.216 It is the position of the Public Defender that disciplinary detention as an ineffective method of ensuring order and security of a penitentiary establishment should be abolished altogether. This standard was established by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Ezeh and Connors v. the United Kingdom.217 Furthermore, the Public Defender observes that, in case disciplinary detention is maintained as a form of punishment in the Imprisonment Code, it is imperative to provide all procedural safeguards that are afforded in criminal proceedings to inmates. Under the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, deprivation of liberty liable to be imposed as an administrative punishment is, in general, a penalty that belongs to the ‘criminal’ sphere for the purposes of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.218 Therefore, the person facing proceedings on imposition of administrative (disciplinary) penalty should be afforded the minimum rights under Article 6.3 of the Convention. Among others, he/she should have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his/her defence. The maximum term of 72 hours stipulated by the provisions of the Imprisonment Code, both those in force and suggested under draft laws, is not enough for a convict to get in touch with a lawyer, plan defence strategy, obtain evidence and prepare defence position to present it before a court. Therefore, the Public Defender observes that administrative (disciplinary) detention, as a punishment, should be abolished altogether. In case, this punishment is still maintained, its maximum duration should be limited to 15 days and convicts should be afforded the possibility to avail themselves fully of procedural safeguards provided for in the criminal procedure. The administration of a penitentiary establishment may use various incentives with regard to those prisoners who show exemplary behaviour and good faith towards the fulfilment 216 See the Parliamentary Report of 2014 by the Public Defender, p. 81, available at: http://www.ombudsman.ge/uploads/other/3/3509.pdf [Last visited on 22.02.2017]; the Parliamentary Report of 2014 by the Public Defender, p. 83, available at: http://www.ombudsman.ge/uploads/other/3/3891.pdf [Last visited on 22.02.2017]. 217 Ezeh and Connors v. the United Kingdom, applications nos. 39665/98, 40086/98, judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights of 9 October 2003, para. 88. In this case, the Government’s central submission was that the necessity of maintaining an effective prison disciplinary regime had to weigh heavily in determining where the dividing line between the criminal and disciplinary lay. The European Court noted that other sanctions were available to governors at the relevant times and considered that it had not been convincingly explained why these other sanctions would not have an impact comparable to awards of additional days in maintaining the effectiveness of the prison disciplinary system, including the authority of the prison management. 218 See, e.g. Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, applications nos. 7819/77 7878/77, judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 28 June 1984. NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM (NPM), 2016 103