The introduction of 120 hours (five days) as the minimum term for storing video recordings is welcomed by the Public Defender as a step forward. The recommendation of the Public Defender, however, still remains the same that it is necessary to store the said recordings at least for ten days and the recordings from de-escalation rooms should be stored for one month. Furthermore, it is necessary to ensure unimpeded access to these recordings for members of the Special Preventive Group. The outcomes of the inspection of penitentiary establishments carried out by the Special Preventive Group in 2016, similar to those in 2015, showed that in accordance with the established practice, the decisions ordering surveillance contain scarce information and is formulaic. In the Parliamentary Reports of 2014 and 2015, the Public Defender recommended to the Parliament and the Minister of Corrections to amend the Imprisonment Code and the Procedure on Surveillance and Control through Visual and/or Electronic means, as well as the Storage, Deleting and Destroying of the Recordings to the effect of stipulating that meetings of remand and convicted persons with the Public Defender and members of Special Preventive Group are confidential and eavesdropping or surveillance of any kind are impermissible. This recommendation, however, has not been fulfilled. Serious threat in terms of ill-treatment of prisoners is posed by criminal subculture existing in penitentiary establishments, which often becomes the reason for violence and oppression among inmates. The Public Defender negatively assesses the policy of the Ministry of Corrections concerning the high risk prison facilities. According to the established practices, these are penitentiary establishments based on static security principles with a particularly restrictive, prohibitive and unconditionally strict regime. Such conditions are not conducive to positive changes in inmates’ behaviour, their rehabilitation and reintegration into the society. It remains problematic that the limitations imposed on the convicted persons placed in high risk prison facilities are unsubstantiated and not based on individual risk assessment of a particular prisoner. For instance, in accordance with the existing regulations, a director has discretional powers to place a prisoner separately from other inmates for a considerable time. There is no maximum term defined in the statutes of the high risk prison facilities for isolation of prisoners and surveillance is ordered in every case of placement. The inmates of high risk prison facilities do not have any possibility to carry out meaningful activities that are of interest for them. The legislation allows the inmates placed in high risk prison facilities fewer visits and telephone calls than the prisoners in other penitentiary establishments. In 2016, isolation of prisoners in solitary confinement cells in penitentiary establishments without following statutory regulations remained a structural problem. In the Parliamentary Report of 2015, the Public Defender recommended to the Minister of Corrections to ensure mandatory review of solitary confinements after 14 days of the application of this measure and in the same intervals afterwards. This recommendation has not been fulfilled. 16 HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATION IN CLOSED INSTITUTIONS