expense. This conversation should last no more than 10 minutes and is allowed only once a month. As an incentive, they can have another telephone conversation lasting no more than 10 minutes at their expense. The Public Defender observes that the establishment type and the nature of the crime committed should not condition allowing visits. It should also be pointed out that the law should allow the inmates of high risk prison facilities the same amount of visits and telephone conversations as afforded to the inmates placed in other penitentiary establishments. The limitation of the number of short visits and telephone conversations should be preconditioned by specific links between such contacts and the crime committed. The existence of strict security regime in the high risk prison facilities is evident due to the particular increase in the number of disciplinary penalties imposed in 2016 in penitentiary establishments nos. 3 and 6. The Public Defender observes that under the conditions of enhanced security measures, the administration of a high risk prison facility should use maximum efforts to ensure that the regulations applying to regular penitentiary establishments are also extended to highrisk inmates. In order to compensate the existing regime, the latter category of inmates should more actively benefit from rehabilitation activities. It is of paramount importance that there are diverse rehabilitation activities tailored to inmates’ individual necessities and aspirations in the high risk prison facilities. The results of the monitoring carried out in 2016 showed that the inmates of high risk prison facilities do not have any possibility to carry out meaningful activities that are of interest for them.48 Such a situation creates unhealthy and stressful environment in an establishment, which in turn has negative ramifications for the relations between inmates and prison staff as well as maintenance of order and security. Most importantly, the objectives of convicted persons’ social rehabilitation and prevention of reoffending cannot be attained in such conditions. According to the letter received from the director of no. 6 establishment, the reason behind the absence of professional and vocational education, and other rehabilitation activities, was that establishment no. 6 is a high risk prison facility.49 The Public Defender negatively assesses such an approach and observes that it once again shows the dependence of the system on the high risk prison facilities in violation of international standards.50 It is noteworthy that in the course of the reporting year only two inmates participated in a rehabilitation activity carried out in high risk prison facility no. 7. There were eight rehabilitation activities in establishment no. 3 in which four convicted persons took part. It is of paramount importance that high risk prison facilities and closed penitentiary establishments offer diverse and regular activities to their inmates in order to contribute to the positive changes in their behaviour and their rehabilitation. Hence, it is necessary that, 48 49 50 34 See further information under the chapter on daily schedule of and rehabilitation activities in penitentiary establishments. Letter no. MOC7 17 00040633 of the Director of penitentiary establishment no. 6, dated 17 January 2017, registered under no. 03-3/205 at the Office of the Public Defender of Georgia. UN Nelson Mandela Rules, see Rules nos. 91, and 92. HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATION IN CLOSED INSTITUTIONS