The existing practice amounts to disproportionate restriction of a convicted person’s contacts with the outside world. In particular, in case of imposition of any disciplinary penalty on a convict, it means that he/she is automatically restricted in the right to video visits and long visits from 6 months up to a year (depending on a disciplinary penalty). This restriction does not serve any legitimate aim and is practically an additional punishment. The Public Defender addressed the issue in 2015 Parliamentary Report as well.240 Accordingly, the Public Defender again reiterates that no restriction of the contacts with the outside world as a disciplinary penalty or an ensuing consequence to this measure should be allowed. Paragraphs 9.a) and 10.c) of the draft law on the Amendment to the Imprisonment Code do not essentially change the above situation and those convicts upon who disciplinary penalty or administrative detention have been imposed are restricted in the right to video visits and long visits. The convicts at penitentiary establishments will be restricted in these rights for 6 months after serving a disciplinary penalty and for a year - in case of placement in a solitary confinement cell as the term of a disciplinary penalty is extended to 6 month after it is served and where placement in a solitary confinement cell has been imposed, the term of the penalty is extended to one year period after it is served. For changing the practice that is well established in the penitentiary system, the Public Defender proposed to the Parliament of Georgia to delete the provision of the Imprisonment Code that prohibits convicts upon which a disciplinary penalty has been imposed to have long visits for a certain period. The Public Defender welcomes the fact that during the committee deliberations, the proposal of the Public Defender has been shared by both the authors of the draft law (the Ministry of Corrections) and the Parliament. During the period this Report was being developed, the draft law on Amendment to the Imprisonment Code that has been passed within the first hearing already contains the change at stake, which is positively assessed. The Public Defender expresses his hope that this change will be adopted in subsequent hearings as well and will eventually be enforced. The Public Defender positively assesses the exemption of those guests that are registered in the unified base of socially vulnerable families from the statutory fees for long visits.241 However, dire economic situation of families still prevent some of the prison population to exercise their statutory right to long visits. Along with to the decrease in the total number of convicts, similar to short visits, the number of long visits also decreased in 2016 in comparison with the indicators of 2015.242 It is noteworthy that establishment no. 2 received 963 long visits in 2015 and 548 in 2016. The study of disciplinary penalties showed that placement in a solitary confinement cell was used in 240 cases. Accordingly, those upon whom disciplinary penalty was imposed could not use long visits. 240 2015 Praliamentary Report by the Public, p. 81, available at: http://www.ombudsman.ge/uploads/other/3/3891.pdf. 241 Order no. 132 of the Minister of Corrections of Georgia, of 22 July 2014, paragraph 4. 242 In 2015, 5,959 visits were made and in 2016, 5,731. 112 HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATION IN CLOSED INSTITUTIONS