Prisons and pre-trial detention centres equally non-prospective idea, which results in permanent extension of the “queue to prisons,” is postponing penalties of imprisonment of up to two years which, as 2016 is approaching, may become massive. In the Defender’s opinion, a good solution would be to change the penal policy to encourage the judiciary to impose non-isolation penalties more often and to analyse the need of penalising certain offences thoroughly.36 The change in the penal policy has been discussed for many years now, but to no avail.37 The “development” of the electronic supervision system is considered legitimate. Yet we should bear in mind that it is not enough to achieve considerable improvement in terms of penitentiary unit overcrowding, especially as we should remember about the scarcity of residential area per one inmate, and strive to enlarge it. After every visit to Poland (1996, 2000, 2004 and 2009), the CPT emphasised it was necessary to provide at least 4 m2 of surface area for every prisoner, as the standard provided for in the Executive Penal Code does not ensure sufficient space to live, and additionally it belongs to one of the lowest as compared to the norms in the penitentiary systems of other European countries (e.g. in Austria it is 6 m2, in Belgium – 9 m2, Bosnia and Herzegovina – 4 m2, Cyprus – 9.5 m2, Czech Republic – 3.5 m2, Denmark – 6-7 m2, Greece – 10 m2, Spain – 6 m2, Netherlands – 10 m2, Ireland – 6-10 m2, Germany – 7 m2, Portugal – 7 m2, Turkey – 8-9 m2, Scotland – 6-8 m2, Italy – 5 m2). 2. Insufficient or ineffective supervision of penitentiary judges over serving the penalty of deprivation of liberty. The insufficient or ineffective supervision of penitentiary judges over serving the penalty of deprivation of liberty was discussed by the NPM representatives with the circles of penitentiary judges.38 The problem most often raised was the lack of thoroughness and reliability during visits to places of detention, expected of penitentiary judges who are supposed to supervise serving the penalty of deprivation of liberty. The issue was the subject of the motion of the Human Rights The issue was regarded as a  systemic recommendation by the HRD Bulletin. Źródła 2012, vol. 5, p. 138. Undersecretary of State in the Ministry of Justice referred to the matter in the statement of 15 October 2012, http://www.rpo.gov.pl/pl/content/raport-rpo-z-dzia%C5%82alno%C5%9Bci-wpolsce-kmp-w-roku-2011-0 37 According to the reply of the Undersecretary of State in the Ministry of Justice of 28 February 2013 (cc: RPO-R-071/17/12, link as above), the Criminal Law Codification Commission to the Ministry is working intensively to amend the Criminal Code. The amendments will cover a vast change in the provisions of the Code’s general part in order to change the penal policy by imposing very severe non-isolation penalties more frequently. 38 For more on the subject, see: Part I, item 4. 36 27