were similar to those found confinement in prisons. as basic information regarding their conditions of detention, should also be included in the house rules. The house rules should be made available in the necessary languages and handed out as required upon admission. in solitary The legal bases cited by the head of the facility (namely section 5 (1) sentence 2 and section 23 of the North Rhine-Westphalia Act on the Execution of Detention Awaiting Deportation) were insufficient for the execution of solitary confinement. Solitary confinement neither represents a mere restriction of the freedom to move around, nor can it be classed as a simple relocation to another detention wing. Until such point as a relevant statutory provision is in force, solitary confinement must not be executed in detention facilities for persons required to leave the country. 2.2.10 – CCTV monitoring As regards CCTV monitoring, several recommendations were submitted concerning the doctor’s room, common rooms and corridors. Doctor’s room In the doctor’s room of the facility for custody awaiting deportation in Darmstadt, a video camera had been installed on the wall which, according to the head of the facility, could not be switched off. The images from this camera are displayed on a monitor in the main office. 2.2.8 – Physical restraint At UfA Büren, a restraining bed had been set up in the entrance area of the specially secured cell. These beds can intimidate detainees awaiting deportation and should therefore not be stored in an immediately visible location. CCTV monitoring of medical treatment rooms constitutes a serious interference with the right of personality of persons concerned, and can also result in a breach of privacy (e.g. if the individual concerned removes their clothes). In the view of the National Agency, the indiscriminate and uninterrupted surveillance observed in the present case is unlawful and should be terminated immediately. Potential security risks should be handled in other ways. 2.2.9 – Provision of information and exercise of rights Detainees at the Darmstadt facility for custody awaiting deportation stated that they were unable to obtain any basic information regarding the facility itself, their conditions of detention or their rights. The house rules, for example, did not contain any specific information on possible complaint channels, contact details of nongovernmental organisations active in the field, or information regarding medical care. Common rooms and corridors At the facility for custody awaiting deportation in Darmstadt and at the Frankfurt Airport branch of the Hesse reception centre for refugees (HEAE Frankfurt Airport), the areas covered by CCTV monitoring included the common rooms and corridors. There was no light on the cameras to indicate to the persons concerned whether or not they were running. At HEAE Frankfurt Airport, the recordings were saved and then deleted after three days. At UfA Büren, there were doubts as to whether the detainees awaiting deportation had been sufficiently informed of the relevant procedures for exercising their rights, such as the dates on which they could receive legal advice. These concerns were particularly applicable in cases involving a language barrier. At HEAE Frankfurt Airport, the house rules were only available in Arabic, English, French and Tamil. Following an enquiry by the National Agency, it was stated that the CCTV monitoring at HEAE Frankfurt Airport was carried out to protect public safety and on the basis of provisions from the Hesse Data Protection and Freedom of Information Act. However, it was still unclear which specific provision served as the legal basis for CCTV monitoring and storing data. Detainees awaiting deportation must be given information on all relevant issues – particularly those relating to their rights – in a language they understand well. In case of communication difficulties, an interpreter must be called upon to assist. In addition, information regarding the rights of detainees awaiting deportation, as well 57