2. Prisons and secure preventive detention »»»»»»» 2. Prisons and secure preventive detention 3 visits of remand prisons Summary report on secure preventive detention Following the visits to both institutions where secure preventive detention is carried out, we evaluated the findings we obtained from the perspective of the system. First, we discussed them at a roundtable with representatives of the institutions, the Ministry of Justice, the Prison Service of the Czech Republic, courts and the Prosecutor General’s Office. Amongst other problems, we found that medical staff and other provessionals would contact inmates only through bars, the inmates were locked up in cells excessively, they did not benefit from sufficient activities and could not spend enough time outside their cells, etc. The parties present agreed that there was an increasing number of changes from forensic treatment to secure preventive detention. Subsequently, a summary report was drawn up and we submitted recommendations for a remedy to the Ministry of Justice and the Government. Summary report Analysis of 100 court decisions on imposing detention, from p. 29 Legislative recommendations on secure preventive detention: Leave out the third sentence of Section 99 (5) of the Criminal Code and thus return the provision to the state before 1 December 2011. Consider this change also for Section 100 (1) and (2). From the very beginning, secure preventive detention was conceived as the strictest, exceptional protective measure (not a punishment) for those perpetrators who posed an extraordinary danger for society. However, 10 years later, the once reasonable capacity of the institutions has been exhausted and must be increased. An analysis of court decisions has shown an increasing frequency of imposing secure preventive detention since 2011, i.e. since the effective date of the amendment enabling detention not only in case of an especially serious felony, but also in case of a “mere” felony. Since then, institutional forensic treatment can also be changed to detention without the need to meet further strict conditions for imposing secure preventive detention. The trend in increasing use of secure preventive detention casts doubt on the original purpose and sense of secure preventive detention. As a result, the increasing capacity of detention also disproportionately burdens the State budget and the Prison Service of the Czech Republic. The proposed amendment to Section 99 (5) of the Criminal Code aims at renewing the original extent of possible change of institutional forensic treatment into secure preventive detention. Section 100 (1) and (2) of the Criminal Code concerns direct imposition of secure preventive detention. Legislative recommendation in the report for the Chamber of Deputies (from page 8) 10