Conditions and treatment of detainees in Gaziantep immigration removal centre We went to three residential units identified by the NPM as presenting the highest potential risks: the unit for suspected terrorists, the unit for families with children and a vulnerable detainees landing, where two families were being held away from the others. The layout of the units was almost identical. The only obvious difference was that, unlike in the family units, the suspected terrorist unit had considerable graffiti in all cells and there were more people in each room. Detainees were responsible for cleaning their own rooms and cleaning materials were provided. There was a laundry room and central heating. All rooms had their own bathrooms. The centre had a canteen and two mosques. Security, safety and potential ill-treatment All rooms were locked overnight from midnight to 08.00, without exception, including those housing children. There were over 300 CCTV cameras in communal areas. The director said that CCTV was kept for six months but also that he had never needed to review the recordings because there had been no allegations against staff. CCTV also covered the legal interview rooms but we were told that sound was disabled to preserve confidentiality. The director said he was not aware of violence or bullying in the centre. While walking between units, we saw an incident that appeared to be an officer hitting a detainee waiting in a dinner queue. The NPM coordinator told the director that he wanted to review the CCTV immediately. We went to the control room and viewed the dining hall from different angles until we saw reasonably clear footage of the guard raising his hand twice and apparently striking a detainee around the head. The NPM assistant experts wrote down details and passed them on to the director. They also took a video of the CCTV footage as evidence. The director undertook to investigate and report back to the NPM. In the family unit, a detainee asked NPM staff to see a woman who claimed that she had been assaulted. She said she had been slapped and shaken by a female security guard and felt that the guard had only stopped when she remembered the CCTV was running. The detainee said the guard had intervened when she was telling off her child and had taken him by the ear. The guard had then allegedly grabbed and shaken the mother, leaving her, she said, with bruises on her arms. She said she had asked to see the director but was always told ‘tomorrow’ by the guards. She said she had not received her prescribed medications and felt she was being victimised. She said she had witnesses to the assault. The NPM team located and interviewed the witnesses in turn and in private. The witnesses said the guard had something against this particular woman and largely corroborated her story. The assistant experts wrote down what the witnesses and alleged victim had said. They then provided them with the statements and asked them to sign, which they all did[31]. The risk of possible reprisals against the detainees was not addressed. [31] The statements were written in Turkish, and it was unclear if the Arabic speaking detainees had fully understood the text of what they were signing, although it was made very clear that they were signing interview statements. 12