draft amendments are trying to introduce manifestly disproportional sanctions for the same types of conduct. Furthermore, the Ministry of Corrections has not provided any reasoned and evidence-supported explanation of why administrative detention would be more effective in maintaining order in special-risk institutions than other disciplinary sanctions. Accordingly, we believe the aforementioned draft proposed by the Ministry of Corrections should not be adopted. Pursuant to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, proceedings for imposing administrative detention are considered criminal charges for the purposes of Article 6 of the European Court of Human Rights.130 Accordingly, a person whose administrative detention is considered enjoys the minimum rights guaranteed in paragraph 3 of Article 6 of the European Convention.131 Among other rights, he/ she should have adequate time and possibility to prepare his/her defense. The requirement that accused person must be allowed adequate time to prepare their case is a guarantee against hasty judicial decisions.132 In determining the adequacy of time afforded, account should be given to the nature and complexity of the case. If new circumstances arise during proceedings, the accused person should be given additional time to appropriately shape his/her position133 for which reason he/ she should have the right to request adjournment of the hearing;134 in some cases, where this is in the interests of justice, the court should adjourn a hearing on its own initiative.135 Pursuant to Article 90 of the Imprisonment Code, a decision imposing administrative detention should be submitted, within 24 hours after it is made, to the competent court according to the location of the institution. The court (a single) judge will examine the decision at an open hearing within 48 hours after the decision has been lodged with the court. A reasoned judgment of the court must be rendered immediately after judicial examination of the decision is completed. Therefore, it is clear from the procedure envisaged by the Imprisonment Code that a prisoner has 72 hours at most to contact a lawyer, develop a defense strategy, obtain evidence and lodge a complaint with the court. It should also be mentioned that there is no possibility of adjourning a hearing after 48 hours have passed following the lodging of the detention decision with a court because the court must make a judgment within 48 hours anyway. As 130 Ezeh and Connors v. the United Kingdom; Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom. 131 According to Article 6(3), every accused person has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court. 132 Kröcher and Möller v. Switzerland (dec), Bonzi v. Switzerland (dec), OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v. Russia, § 540. 133 Miminoshvili v. Russia, § 141, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], § 62, G.B. v. France, §§ 60-62. 134 Galstyan v. Armenia, § 85, Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, § 98. 135 Sadak and Others v. Turkey (no. 1), § 57, Sakhnovskiy v. Russia [GC], §§ 103 and 106. NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM OF GEORGIA 79