CAT/OP/MNG/1 101. The Subcommittee delegation was also informed that contact with the outside world is very restrictive, comprising only 20 minutes each month for those patients in an open prison regime and only 20 minutes every two months for those in a closed prison regime. 102. The Subcommittee recommends that exercise and other educational, recreational and cultural activities be provided for all patients. 20 Windows should be unfrosted as a matter of urgency, and opportunities for contact with the outside world must be expanded. In addition, such contact should not be included within the general quota of visits to which the patients are entitled when they return to prison. Transfer from hospital to prison 103. Some patients, notably those coming from prisons at a considerable distance from the central prison hospital, are held at pretrial detention facility No. 461 before being transferred back at the end of their medical treatment. Patients complained that they could be held for as long as two months in poor material conditions, in settings which could also be overcrowded and negated the benefits of their medical treatment. 104. The Subcommittee recommends that the periods for which former medical patients are held at pretrial detention facility No. 461 pending their return to the prisons of origin must be kept as short as possible, and during that time, they must be held in conditions that are appropriate to their vulnerable state of health. Detention centre for those addicted to drugs or alcohol Legal safeguards 105. The Subcommittee is concerned at the vague legal framework under which those addicted to drugs or alcohol may be placed in detention. In particular, the Subcommittee is concerned that medical assessments of substance addiction appear to be superficial and not always based on appropriate medical testing. The Subcommittee found no evidence in patients’ medical files confirming that medical examinations had been conducted that supported the determination that the detained person was in fact an “addict”. Detainees confirmed that they had not been bodily examined prior to court hearings, which they considered to be doing little more than “rubberstamping” the views of the police, that they be detained. 106. Detainees claimed that neither the process or procedure concerning their detention had been explained to them, nor had they had any explanation of their rights. They were not aware of any avenues through which the decision to detain them could be the subject of impartial, timely and effective scrutiny. 107. The Subcommittee is concerned that in the absence of such fundamental safeguards, placement in the centre may amount to arbitrary detention. 108. The Subcommittee recommends that: (a) Community-based approaches for addressing the needs of those with problems of drug and alcohol abuse should be explored as an alternative to forms of administrative detention, which run the risk of being arbitrary in nature; (b) Any determination that a person is an “addict” should be based on appropriate medical examinations and criteria. All medical examinations should be accurately recorded in a medical file, which should be available to the detainee and their lawyers upon request; (c) The State party ensure that, in practice, all persons deprived of their liberty are afforded all fundamental legal safeguards from the outset of their detention, which includes being informed of the reasons for their detention, their rights as detainees and their right of access to a lawyer of their choice; 20 The Nelson Mandela Rules, rule 105. 17