Partial strip search is conducted before and after an remand/convicted person’s visits to a dactyloscopy technician, a health-care professional, an investigator; before and after meetings with close relatives or other persons; during transfers to other cell; as well as other instances based on a decision reached by a director or another authorised official. Unlike partial strip-search, the statutes of penitentiary establishments provide for full bodily searches of remand/convicts for all occasions of the first arrival, temporary leave and return to the penitentiary establishment.87 Furthermore, in accordance with the statute of a penitentiary establishment, full strip-search may also be conducted in other cases based on a decision reached by a director or another authorised official. The Public Defender observes that the regulations under the statutes of penitentiary establishments under which full bodily searches may be administered in all occasions of the first arrival, temporary leave and return to the penitentiary establishment is a blanket provision allowing routine and unjustified strip-searches. The Public Defender is of the opinion that the legislation in force should not allow routine strip-searches and bodily inspections may only be based on individual assessment of the risks posed by a particular inmate, taking into account the principles of proportionality and necessity. It is also important that full bodily searches are only administered in exceptional cases and with adequate written justification. This is essential to avoid unjustified interferences in the right to privacy. As the result of examination of one of the cases concerning full bodily search of convict G.O. before transportation to a court, the Public Defender found that there was unnecessary and disproportionate interference in the right to private life. The representatives of the Public Defender of Georgia visited the Ministry of Corrections of Georgia on 9 September 2016, where they examined the recording of visual surveillance administered with regard to G.O. which also included the recording of the full stripsearch. After the examination of the video recording, minutes were duly drafted. It is revealed from the minutes of surveillance that full bodily search of G.O. was administered from 12:16 until 12:24 on 7 September 2016. In this time, there were at least six staff members present apart from the convict in the special quarantine chamber.88 G.O. hands over the items from his pocket and in accordance with the statute of the penitentiary establishment, the staff members examine the items, clothes and shoes both manually and with the help of metal detectors. According to the minutes, At 12:21:36, the convict, at the request of the staff, drops his trousers up to his knees and raises his hands, after which a staff member examines him with a metal detector from waist down to the knees. At 12:21:51, the convict is instructed to remove clothes completely from the mentioned part of the body. After a dispute that approximately lasts for a minute, he follows the instruction. It is to be pointed out that if not for G.O.’s objection, other members of the staff were not going to leave the quarantine chamber. 87 88 54 Oder no. 149 of the Minister of Corrections of Georgia approving the Procedure for Providing Convoy for Removal/Transfer of Remand/Convicted Persons, Article 29. According to the minutes drafted by the representative of the Public Defender of Georgia, the entrance of the quarantine chamber is not in the field of vision of the camera installed in the chamber. Therefore, there could be other persons too in the chamber. See, the annexed minutes, p. 2. HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATION IN CLOSED INSTITUTIONS