62 MONITORING OF CUSTODIAL SETTINGS IN UKRAINE: NPM monitored the following institutions: Penitentiaries (colonies) Remand prisons Oleksyivka penitentiary (No. 25) Kachanivka penitentiary (No. 54) Kamyanets penitentiary (No. 101) Olshany penitentiary (No. 53) Ladyzhyn penitentiary (No. 39) Stryzhavka penitentiary (No. 81) Uman penitentiary (No. 129) Stari Babany penitentiary (No. 92) Horodyshche penitentiary (No. 96) Horodok correctional center (No. 131) Mena penitentiary (No. 91) Zamkova penitentiary (No. 58) Shepetivka penitentiary (No. 98) Kolomyia penitentiary (No. 41) Seleznivka penitentiary (No. 143) Berdychiv penitentiary (No. 70) Kyiv remand prison Kharkiv remand prison Zaporizhzhya remand prison Kirovohrad remand prison Mykolayiv remand prison Lviv remand prison Rivne remand prison Novhorod-Siversky penal institution (No. 31) Transcarpathian penal institution (No. 9) Donetsk remand prison Khmelnytsky remand prison Ivano-Frankivsk remand prison Luhansk penal institution (No. 17) Follow-up visits Lviv remand prison Kyiv remand prison Monitoring results of visits helped to identify systematic violations of the custody and sentence enforcement procedures that entail cruel or degrading treatment of prisoners. Administrations of penitentiary institutions and remand prisons in a number of instances inhumanly or cruelly treated their prisoners and abused applied correctional measures by: excessive use of force and special means against prisoners; unreasonable application disciplinary measures; of harsh imposition of extraordinary duties for cleaning of general use areas; extra long holding of prisoners who violated the established custody rules in unsuitable premises of duty units; support of the criminal subculture by the institutional personnel; verbal abuse, threats of disciplinary punishments, groundless refusal of incentive rules application, and so on. The administration of Kamyanets-Podilsky penitentiary (No. 101) in violation of the departmental regulations was not properly registering and recording the prisoners’ injuries and failed to conduct timely investigations of such facts. Personal medical records of individual prisoners contained entries on identified injuries but no such entries were made in the registers of the medical unit of this institution. During visit prisoners complained about unlawful actions of the administration, improper nutrition, non-abidance by the correspondence dispatch procedures, lack of opportunities to receive legal assistance, etc. The administration failed to properly