However, the visitors were deeply concerned that proper documentation about checks on immobilised persons did not mean that such checks were actually executed. At the sobering-up station at Gliwice, information about application of direct coercion measures was properly noted both in the book of reports and in patient records. An additional documentation on the watching of patients provided information about checks executed every 15 minutes. The visitors watched monitoring records for one immobilisation case in order to verify the correctness of that documentation. The patient’s records provided information about checks every 15 minutes while pictures from monitoring did not confirm that checks required by § 11 paragraph 1c of the Ordinance81 were actually taking place. Therefore, the visitors recommended the station to perform reliable checks of all patients to whom direct coercion measures were applied in the form of immobilisation. Answering, the head of the station informed that the staff were instructed to carry out reliable checks of the health status of such patients as required. Representatives of the National Preventive Mechanism emphasised the importance of holding a specific register regarding extraordinary cases and application of direct coercion measures. Although the Ordinance does not expressly impose such obligation, it imposes the duty to collect and to submit statistics. Such register would not only allow for a more prompt submission of such statistics, but also would allow for an efficient tracking of data and a more prompt responce to complaints. At the same time, such register would help to analyse cases of application of direct coercion measures, including justification of their application (Gdańsk). Reacting to these recommendations, the Mayor of Gdańsk informed that he had ordered the head of the station to start a specific register for such cases. d) Protection against ill treatment – the forcible changing into disposable clothing Case Wiktorko v Poland82, Decision of 31 March 2009: if such body searches are needed, in cases when it is necessary to ensure safety in prison, or to prevent chaos or crime, they must be escorted in an appropriate way and be justified. They should be escorted in a proper way with respect for the human person and have an appropriate goal (Yankov v. Bulgaria, No. 39084/97, § 166-176, ETPCz 2003-XII; Wainwright v UK, nr 12350/04, § 42, ETPCz 2006-...). Even individual cases of body search were held as degrading treatment as regards the way they were escorted, the possibility that they were escorted to humilate and to degrade, and the lack of justification (v. Valašinas v Lithuania No. 44558/98, § 117, ETPCz 2001-VIII). The Court also holds that when the order to undress to make a body search is not linked in a determined way to the keeping of safety or prevention of crime and disorder, Article 3 of the Convention may be infringed (Wainwright, op. cit., § 42; Wieser v Austria, No. 2293/03, § 40, 22 February 2007, where the claimant was undressed by police officers). Having analysed a patient’s records, selected at random, containing information that physical coercion was used in order to undress the patient, NPM representatives watched the monitoring record regarding admission of that person. The picture confirmed the practice of forcible undresssing. The visitors were alarmed by the                                                              81 82 Idem Complaint No. 14612/02