The Public Defender deems that, apart from full strip-search, it is also problematic that the law does not differentiate between full strip search and body cavity search and there are no procedures prescribed for each type of bodily search. It is therefore impossible to determine which measure should be used in a particular situation. This lack of distinction increases the risk of unjustified resort to invasive measures even more. The Public Defender considers it necessary that statutes of the penitentiary establishments should clearly differentiate between strip search and body cavity search and stipulate a specific procedure for each measure. In the Parliamentary Report of 2015, the Public Defender recommended to the Minister of Corrections to replace aggressive (invasive) bodily search with an alternative such as scans in establishment no. 5. The above recommendation was based on the monitoring carried out in establishment no. 15 in 2015. According to the results, women prisoners were ordered to strip and perform squats. The women prisoners explained that these procedures were degrading and morally damaging. Furthermore, due to the fact that these procedures were obligatory to be carried out whenever leaving/returning to the prison, the women prisoners refused to leave the establishment even for getting medical services or appearing before a court. The Recommendation of the Public Defender on the use of scans as an alternative measure to the full bodily search of women prisoners was based on the United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders (the Bangkok Rules), under which alternative screening methods, such as scans, shall be developed to replace strip searches and invasive body searches to avoid the harmful psychological and possible physical impact of invasive body searches.93 The Public Defender welcomes the steps taken in fulfilling the above recommendation. In particular, a scanner was installed at establishment no. 5 and the statute of penitentiary establishment no. 5 was amended to the effect of providing its women prisoners the right to undergo personal screening with a scanner. The monitoring carried out in 2016 showed that, in no. 5 penitentiary establishment for women, scanning was not used as the alternative method of search. In particular, scanning was used as an additional, and not as an alternative measure, along with the full bodily search. This is in clear violation of the standards established by the Bangkok rules. The Public Defender observes that in cases, where scanners are used as an alternative method of screening, additional measures should not be used. During the visits of the Special Preventive Group, carried out in 2016 in various penitentiary establishments, prisoners pointed out the problem of full (strip) body searches and squats. According to the prisoners, these procedures were degrading. According to the information received from the Ministry of Corrections, a scanner has been purchased for establishments nos. 2, 6, 8, and 17. However, as it turns out, this 93 56 The United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders (the Bangkok Rules), 6 October 2010, A/C.3/65/L.5, Rules nos. 19-20. HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATION IN CLOSED INSTITUTIONS