Situation of deprivation of liberty In addition, in the opinion of this Institution, the notice to the penitentiary surveillance judge should record, in addition to the date and time of commencement and cessation, and the reasons for adoption of the measure, the following matters: whether the measure was authorised by the director or only the medical report was submitted to him on the existence or not of impediments to adopt the measure, the total duration of the measure if cessation is reported, and whether or not the facts gave rise to the institution of a disciplinary proceeding. Inclusion of all concurrent factors 109. At the visits, special attention was given to the application of me- At some CPs the use of mechanical restraint should be reviewed chanical restraint, observing that in a relevant number of immobilisations carried out at the CPs of Segovia, Puerto I and Puerto III (Cádiz) in the year before the visits in question, the duration exceeded 12 hours, in many cases reaching 24 hours. Also, at CP Puerto III (Cádiz), mechanical restraints were applied to certain inmates several times allowing little time to elapse between them. They are therefore restraints for long time periods, which should be exceptionally founded, given their serious effects on the rights of the inmates. Mechanical restraint is not a means of punishment and is instead a measure for contention the duration of which should be as short as required to cease the reasons for which it was applied. Accordingly, the SGIP has been requested to review the use of mechanical restraints at such CPs. 110. At CP Puerto I (Cádiz) it was observed that two long immobilisations were performed on an inmate consecutively allowing 5 minutes between them, during which he was released to eat. Although the Record of coercive measures records it as a single immobilisation, it was processed and notified to the penitentiary surveillance judge as a single immobilisation. Nevertheless, it would apparently have been more correct to record it as a single immobilisation, since it cannot be considered that releasing the inmate to eat implies cessation of the measure. In addition, in this case, the physical force that had to be used to tie the belts on the inmate was not reported to the Penitentiary Surveillance Court. Immobilisations of one inmate not correctly recorded at CP Puerto I (Cádiz) 111. The lack of medical presence 24 hours a day has direct implications on the adoption of coercive measures. Thus, at CP Puerto I (Cádiz), in one case, a regimental immobilisation was applied although, according to the description of the facts, apparently a healthcare action would have been more adequate, since there is no record that the inmate acted aggressively, the facts referring only to his anxiety and nervousness due to family problems. Taking into account that article 72 RP establishes that coercive measures should be used only “where no other less burdensome manner exists to achieve the sought purpose”, it appears that a medical correction of the situation would have been more adequate, as was reported to the SGIP. At this CP, various cases were also observed in which, despite the fact that the commencement of the mechanical restraint was ordered by the medical services, they were treated as regimental immobilisations. The lack of medical present 24 hours has effects on the adoption of coercive measures 112. Officers control regularly the mechanical restraints applied to the Recommendation for permanent supervision of immobilised persons inmates. In this respect, the Recommendation already made to the SGIP as to the fact that immobilised persons should be permanently supervised is repeated, according to paragraph 103 of Annual Report 101