thermore pointed out that the patient did not conduct himself in a manner posing a danger to others requiring him to be locked up during the day. Rather, amongst other things the constructional circumstances had been the reason for locking him up. It can be deduced from the reaction of the supervisory authority below that the Commission’s findings were correct regarding the locked up patient. Reaction: The reception wing had been designed to offer accommodation in accordance with the Remand Detention Act (Untersuchungshaftvollzugsgesetz), which applies to accommodation in accordance with section 126a of the Code of Criminal Procedure, where this was compatible with accommodation in a psychiatric hospital. Section 10 subsection (3) of the North Rhine-Westphalia Remand Detention Act therefore also applied in principle, and stipulated that it was possible to spend time outside the cells where this was permitted by the spatial, staffing and organisational conditions in the prison. Locking up during the day was hence only justified by way of exception if it was for the above reasons and the measure was proportionate in the individual case. This was to be affirmed for the case quoted by the Joint Commission: Directly after being committed to temporary accommodation in accordance with section 126a of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the newly-arrived patient had to be first of all examined as to whether he/she posed any danger. Accommodation in accordance with section 126a of the Code of Criminal Procedure was ordered because the persons concerned were suspected of having committed a criminal offence immediately before this because of a mental disorder and that it could be presumed that they posed a danger. The assessment of whether, because of a mental disorder, a patient actually tended towards conduct that posed a danger to others could not be made only ten days later, during which time the person concerned had acted normally. Particularly in the case of temporary accommodation, it was therefore especially also the safety of the staff that had to be taken into consideration. Locking up during the day was hence justified in individual cases where, because of illness or other situations that could not be planned, there was insufficient staff in the wing to guarantee security and if it was not yet possible to assess the patient with regard to the danger which he/she posed. According to the research carried out by the supervisory authority, it could be presumed in the case at hand that the level of danger could not be assessed because of the very short stay since the court committal, so that it was not only the staffing situation or constructional conditions in the ward that could be seen as being responsible for locking up. The supervisory authority nonetheless shared the view of the Joint Commission that locking up should not be the rule as soon as a patient was categorised as not posing a danger, and that he or she could as a matter of principle be permitted to 81