VIII)  Permanently unemployable convicts necessary steps to minimise the risk of suicide, even in those convicts or accused persons with mental illness who have never attempted suicide before. 99 2) Definition of the category of permanently unemployable convicts The PUC as defined by the Imprisonment Act (see above) is very diverse. This group of convicts includes healthy seniors, persons with disabilities, as well as people suffering from a mental illness. As a rule, all these convicts serve imprisonment in specialised PUC blocks 100, which I consider undesirable with regard to the need of differentiated treatment of these convicts, who have specific health needs. In practice, the diversity of this group leads to conflicts between the convicts. Moreover, the current legal regulation of this category only accentuates the possibilities for employment of the individual convicts, not their medical condition. This is why I consider the very name of the category very misleading. The PUC category must be more differentiated and the individual groups must have specific treatment programmes; it must not be seen as a “discard” category of convicts who are unable to work due to their medical condition or age. I recommend that the Ministry of Justice: •• Proposes a change of the statutory definition of permanently unemployable convicts included in Section 69 (1) of the Imprisonment Act and the related provisions so that the definition is primarily based on the medical condition of the convicts and not their possibilities of employment; this should be implemented in the next amendment to the Imprisonment Act. During the systematic visits, I encountered two convicts in the PUC category who were suffering of a mental disorder and were, in my opinion, ill-treated in the prison. Both convicts were placed in their cells where they spent most of their day, mostly locked up. 101 The cells were standard, with austere equipment. The convicts were put on only a minimum programme of treatment, did not participate in any activities and not even the specialist employees of the prison worked with them in any systematic manner. It is doubtful whether the purpose of their imprisonment was being achieved as they were merely isolated, which is impermissible with respect to the duties of the State indicated above. I note this case particularly because I want to initiate discussion about the following topics: (a) subjecting such persons to imprisonment; (b) achieving the purpose of imprisonment in case of these persons; and (c) using the instruments allowing to suspend or waive imprisonment of convicts with mental retardation or other mental disorders. 99 E.g. judgement of the European Court of Human Rights in case De Donder and De Clippel v. Belgium of 6 December 2011, no. 8595/06. 100 Pursuant to Section 92 of the Imprisonment Rules. 101 Both convicts were, according to the prison management, placed in an ordinary block, but given their inability to integrate with the usual group and conflicts and aversion they triggered on the part of the other convicts, they were placed separately based on a psychologist’s recommendation. /35/