VISITS BY THE JOINT COMMISSION amongst both prisoners and staff, it must be clear which measure is being enforced so that, if necessary, the legal basis for the measure is obvious. Further, the use of these cells must be carefully documented since different conditions apply and therefore different grounds arise therefor. Response: The head of the institution has directed that occupancy of the plain detention cells be documented fully and in detail according to the ground for the placement, for instance in occupancy record books. In addition, the central IT office serving prisons in Thuringia has been asked to update existing EDP programs so that it is possible to trace back the occupancy history. When inspecting the files the Joint Commission found that the forms used to order precautionary measures do not draw a distinction between segregation pursuant to section 88 (2), no. 3 of the Prison Act and solitary confinement in accordance with section 89 (1) of the Prison Act. Response: The suggestion that separate forms be used for cases under section 88 (2) no. 3 and those under section 89 (1) of the Prison Act has been examined. However, there is not felt to be any need to introduce separate forms, since solitary confinement is merely a special form of segregation. The forms also provide that the ordering of the measure and its termination be precisely documented so that time-limits are observed. The house rules applicable to the various groups of prisoners are only available in German. They should be made available in those languages most commonly spoken by prisoners. Response: The house rules will be revised upon the entry into force of the Thuringia Prison Act and then translated into the languages most commonly spoken by prisoners. semi-open wing, the admissions area, the “riot-proof cells” with CCTV cameras, the specially secured room containing no dangerous objects and the options for enforcing Fixierung. The Joint Commission talked to the head of the institution, as well as to staff in the general prison service and the specialist services. In addition, it talked to three prisoners who were being detained in the plain detention cells at the time of the visit, including one detainee awaiting deportation, and six other remand prisoners and sentenced prisoners, some of whom were being held in multi-occupancy cells. 3.2.1 – Positive findings Detaining different groups of prisoners requires a high degree of organisational differentiation. In the Joint Commission’s view the prison has successfully implemented different conditions of detention based on security aspects. It welcomes the fact that a prison treatment plan is drawn up for each prisoner after 90 days. In this context the Joint Commission would like to mention the informative meeting it had with the specialist services. It would like to highlight the fact that during the meeting a strategy was developed for creating a prisoner council taking account of the special circumstances of the prison which executes relatively short terms of imprisonment. The Joint Commission also welcomes the fact that staff are assigned to different areas on a permanent basis, which is conducive to developing a relaxed atmosphere between prisoners and prison staff. 3.2.2 – Recommendations of the Joint Commission and response of the Ministry of Justice of Thuringia 3.2 – VISIT TO GOLDLAUTER PRISON IN 2012 In the multi-occupancy cells which the Joint Commission inspected the toilet area is not structurally separate from the living area, but is only separated off by means of a shower curtain. This protects neither against noise nor odour. In addition, the multi-occupancy cells have a floor area of just under 10.77 m2. Response: The cells referred to are all in Block 1 (an old building). The number of multi-occupancy cells has been significantly reduced since 2008. Nevertheless, at the time of writing Block 1 still had 31 double-occupancy cells with no separate toilet. Enclosing the toilets would involve alterations on a larger scale having to be made; these have already been applied for but not yet authorised. In a first step the double-occupancy cells will be turned into singleoccupancy cells. However, this cannot be done until the Youth Detention Facility in Arnstadt opens. As an interim solution the head of the institution is endeavouring to ensure The Joint Commission visited Goldlauter Prison on 8 November 2012. Goldlauter Prison is responsible for the execution of terms of imprisonment of no more than one year and six months, remand detention imposed against adults, juveniles and youths, and custody pending deportation. The closed wing has a roll of 298, divided into 150 single and 148 multioccupancy cells. An additional 22 prisoners can be accommodated in the open wing. At the time of the inspection visit the facility had an occupancy of 296 prisoners, 16 of whom were in the block for day release prisoners and 24 in the semiopen block. Three people were in custody pending deportation, 120 in remand detention. The Joint Commission in particular inspected the wings for sentenced prisoners, for remand prisoners, for detainees awaiting deportation, the open wing and the 79