Short-term deprivation of liberty imum required for orderly life in prison (Constitutional Court Rulings 89/1987 & 089/2006 FJ 2). However, these considerations concerning the limits of and respect for the right to privacy of inmates are based fundamentally on the long duration of the deprivation of liberty of those inmates and are not therefore comparable to short-stay detention in police and courthouse facilities. A recommendation has therefore been made that video-surveillance systems be installed in such establishments. Finally, during the inspection visits made in 2011 it was observed that the video-surveillance system at the district police station in Las Palmas de Gran Canaria (Las Palmas) and the Autonomous Police of the Canary Islands only covered the hallways of the cell area, and that the CNP station attached to the Regional Government of Valencia had no video-surveillance. The Department of Governance [Consejería de Gobernación] of the Regional Government of Valencia reports that it has taken note of the criterion applied by the Ombudsman, although the establishment in question is not being used to hold detainees. Similarly, shortcomings in video-surveillance were observed on inspection visits to local police establishments and courthouse holding cells and the organisations responsible for the establishments in question were informed accordingly. The Department of Governance and Justice [Consejería de Gobernación y Justicia] of the Regional Government of Andalusia reports that an estimate has been requested from a specialist firm with a view to determining whether it is affordable to install such systems at the courthouse in Ayamonte (province of Huelva) and the courthouse complex in Huelva city. 39.  In most of the inspection visits made in 2011 it was observed that measures in regard to the activating of recordings, security protocols for access to them, the extracting of images that show any incidents involving persons deprived of liberty that may take place, the time for which recordings are kept, the informing of detainees that recordings are being made and the conducting of regular internal audits of video recordings were either non-existent or not fulfilled. The latter case was found at the establishments of the Ertzaintza and the Mossos d’Esquadra. For instance it was observed during the inspection visit to the GC headquarters in Donostia/San Sebastián (Gipuzkoa) that the recording system had to be manually activated and that there could be cases – as indeed occurred on the day of the inspection – in which due to omission or negligence recording did not commence at the time of entry of the detainee in the cells. In this regard the DGGC reports that a continuous recording system is now in place at this establishment, as per the requirements of the Ombudsman. The DGP reports that a continuous recording period of 15 days has been established and that recordings showing incidents involving persons deprived of liberty can be extracted. For its part the Office of the Secretary of State for Justice reports that video recorders have been installed in the courthouse in Guadalajara so that all the images captured by the cameras there can be stored. It is also reported that access to the recordings at this establishment is restricted in line with the criteria recommended by the Ombudsman. THE OMBUDSMAN OF SPAIN  Shortcomings were observed in the activation of recordings, the time for which images were kept and the access security protocols  57