should be compensated by additional measures such as contact with the outside world, accessibility to rehabilitation activities, library and television /radio. Under Article 54 of the Imprisonment Code, the decision to conduct surveillance and control is made if other means proved to be ineffective. However, Article 121 of the Imprisonment Code allows visual and/or electronic surveillance and control of convicted persons placed in high risk prison facilities. The above-mentioned shows that the system of static security is the main means to attain security in these establishments. The Public Defender of Georgia has numerously observed in his reports that the security system may not be based only on static security and it should take into account effective implementation of dynamic security concept. The monitoring conducted by the Special Preventive Group showed that surveillance is carried out with regard to every prisoner admitted to a high risk prison facility. Each remand and convicted person admitted into the establishment is placed in a special cell equipped with electronic surveillance. In each case, there is an order issued to allow surveillance based on the Security Service motion and the report of an official in charge of legal regime of the facility. The aforementioned orders are, however, stereotypical and never based on individual risk assessment. The Public Defender observes that the legislation should not allow routine surveillance and control through visual and/or electronic means only because the establishment is a high risk prison facility. It is important that the aforementioned restriction should only be used with the due account for individual assessment of security risks posed by an inmate, proportionality and necessity. Otherwise, such measures will amount to unlawful and arbitrary interferences in the private life of an individual. The absence of specific, maximum terms for extending solitary confinement as a security measure in high risk prison facilities shows the danger of arbitrary continuation of such measures for unlimited time. This practice shows differential treatment in high risk prison facilities in comparison to other penitentiary establishments. European Committee for the Prevention of Torture points out in its report that the number of visits should not depend on the type of the facility and the crime committed. It is important that prisoners sentenced to life in prison should be allowed more short and long visits which will enable them to maintain close ties with their family members and facilitate their rehabilitation.47 It is noteworthy that in terms of maintaining contacts with their families, the inmates placed in closed penitentiary establishments and high risk prison facilities receive differential treatment in comparison to inmates of other establishments. In particular, convicted persons, placed in either high risk prison facilities or closed penitentiary establishments, are only allowed one short visit and as an incentive one additional short visit in a month. The inmates placed in high risk prison facilities face even more restrictive conditions in terms of use of telephone. They are allowed to have one telephone conversation at their 47 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), 2015, available at: http:// www.cpt.coe.int/documents/geo/2015-42-inf-eng.pdf [Last visited on 14.03.2017]. NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM (NPM), 2016 33