-54 by the commission that decides on the imposition of solitary confinement. In some cases, there is too much delay: one consequence of this is that it may happen to a detainee to be isolated for a given period of time and after the measure has ended, it is confirmed ex post by said commission. In other cases the disciplinary measure of isolation comes long after the facts that led to the adoption of the measure itself. In one case, the length of the procedure and the high number of disciplinary measures applied in the institution meant that cases were heard by the disciplinary board six months after the alleged violation of the regulation and the application of the isolation measure. It is a de-facto isolation with a procedure that gives no safeguards to the concerned detainee. The NPM should also verify whether the person detained in solitary confinement has been informed about the outcome of the decision and the possibility to appeal against it in writing, and whether in practice s/ he can appeal against it. 4.3.6. Material conditions All the interviewed NPMs stressed the problem of the material conditions in which isolation takes place, which are almost always significantly worse than the rest of the penitentiary institute. The most monitored aspects are: • The frequency and duration of access to the open air (which should be for at least one hour a day); • The presence of an outdoor area where detainees can exercise, the presence of means of protection from the weather and the absence of barriers that obstruct the view of the sky in said outdoor area; • The presence in the cell of a table, a chair, a bed, a bathroom, sufficient light and air; • The size of the cell; • The possibility of calling a staff member from inside the cell; • Access to books and newspapers; • Access to the same food, hygiene and cell conditions as other detainees; • Even if international standards require cells to have access to natural light, if a solitary confinement cell is not lit by natural light, some