The positive atmosphere highlighted during the 2013 visit appeared to have given way to a fundamentally restrictive attitude during the follow-up visit. The National Agency sees a risk that fundamental rights may be violated without any factual basis for doing so. Furthermore, the conditions in which individuals awaiting deportation were held were generally similar to those found in the prison system. Furthermore, it should be possible for detainees awaiting deportation to make meaningful use of their time. This can include access to common rooms, prayer rooms and kitchens where detainees can prepare their own meals. The need for structural security measures should also be reconsidered in light of plans to expand the facility for custody awaiting deportation. It should be ensured that detention conditions differ more significantly from those found in prison, and that the restrictions imposed on detainees awaiting deportation are kept to an absolute minimum. Furthermore, the available premises should be made accessible for a longer period of time each day, and additional facilities should be made available to keep the detainees occupied. Custody pending deportation should differ significantly from the execution of a prison 62 sentence. Any restrictive measures must be necessary and proportionate in each individual case. In addition, staff members’ insecurities in dealing with the detainees ought to be taken seriously. The issue could be addressed, for example, by providing factual information and developing a clear strategy for individual risk assessment. This could help to raise staff confidence and prevent disproportionate restrictions to the rights of detainees awaiting deportation. 2.2.14 – Proportionality of measures restricting fundamental rights At the Büren detention centre for persons required to leave the country (UfA Büren), staff repeatedly informed the visiting delegation that the facility’s demographic – and therefore its atmosphere – had changed significantly in recent years. They stated that the detainees awaiting deportation increasingly comprised criminal offenders and persons posing a threat to public safety (Gefährder). At the same time, the facility’s management explained that the facility did not always receive comprehensive information concerning the background of the individuals being held there. For this reason, they added, it was often difficult to carry out a risk assessment. 2.2.15 – Confidentiality of medical consultations Where communication issues arise during the initial medical examination or during other doctor-patient consultations at the facility for custody awaiting deportation in Darmstadt, a member of staff or detainee is summoned to act as an interpreter. In addition, the head of the facility stated that the facility’s social worker is always present during medical consultations. For reasons of confidentiality, as well as to ensure the correct translation of technical terms and subject matter, translations must always be performed by a professional interpreter. In addition, detainees awaiting deportation should have the possibility of engaging in medical consultations without the presence of a third party, provided there are no security concerns that would preclude this. With reference to the need to ensure security and order, stricter rules were imposed in the facility. For example, in contrast to the delegation’s observations during its visit in 2013, the detainees awaiting deportation were not only locked up at night, but also during the day between the hours of 7 a.m. and 2 p.m. Furthermore, their movements during out-ofcell time were also restricted. For example, they were also locked in the common rooms during this time. Based on the documents sent to the National Agency, the number of special security measures was remarkably high compared to other facilities for custody awaiting deportation. 2.2.16 – Access to the law Several of the detainees awaiting deportation in Darmstadt criticised the lack of possibilities for obtaining legal assistance. In response, the 62 Opinion of Advocate General Yves Bot of 30/04/2014, file no: C-473/13, C-574/13 and C-474/13 59