The electronic surveillance is cancelled with the orders based on the requests that only specify that the time for placement in solitary confinement expired and the prisoner was to be transferred to the common cell. Apart from the substantiation of the decision about visual and/or electronic surveillance, it is important to periodically review those decisions. Under Rule 50.1 of the European Prison Rules, security measures used against individual prisoners must be minimal, going only so far as needed to secure safe imprisonment. Under Rule 50.4, every prisoner must be under such security conditions that correspond to the risk level. Under Rule 50.5, the needed level of security should be reviewed regularly throughout the entire period of imprisonment.’ It is worth noting that the Minister of Corrections took up the proposal of the Public Defender to change the Regulations Concerning Visual and/or Electronic Surveillance and Control, Storage, Deleting or Destroying the Recordings as regards introducing the obligation to review decisions about surveillance. However, assuming that in practice, the decisions about surveillance and control are not well-substantiated, it does not make much sense to adopt new decisions of the same quality. It is also worth noting that in 2014 Parliamentary Report, the Public Defender addressed the Minister of Corrections with the recommendation to determine the reasonable time (not less than 10 days) for storing the recordings of video surveillance and secure unimpeded access to such recordings for the members of the Special Preventive Group. However, this recommendation has not been complied with. Under Article 15 (2) of the Regulations Concerning Visual and/or Electronic Surveillance and Control, Storage, Deleting or Destroying the Recordings, the recorded material is stored only for 24 hours. Besides, notwithstanding Article 18 (b) of the Organic Law of Georgia about the Public Defender that creates an entitlement to demand and receive all necessary documents and materials from state organs and organs of local self-governance, public establishments and officials for examination in 10 days maximum, the representatives of the Public Defender did not have any practical possibility to view these video recordings. Apart from the above mentioned problematic issues, Article 8 of the Regulations Concerning Visual and/or Electronic Surveillance and Control, Storage, Deleting and Destroying the Recordings repeats the formulation of the Imprisonment Code and points out that the administration is authorized to observe the meetings of persons indicated in Article 54 (6) of the Imprisonment Code through visual, technical means of remote observation and record without sound. We gave the recommendation in 2014 Parliamentary Report to the Parliament and the Minister of Corrections to amend the Imprisonment Code and the above mentioned NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM (NPM), 2015 45