The establishment director is responsible for assigning cells. Many factors must be taken into account relating to the inmate (e.g. age, medical situation, language, suicide risk, etc.) but, also the rules requiring the separation or isolation of certain populations (e.g. remand and convicted, minor and adult, first-time and repeat offenders). In practice, these rules are not always respected, given the chronic overpopulation that affects French remand centres.

Staff members assigned to the arrivals block are usually trained to recognise prisoners presenting potential suicide risks. “Prison shock” generally occurs at the end of their time in the arrivals block, when an inmate is moved to regular detention.

Sentencing plans, called parcours d’exécution des peines (PEP), have been generalised since 2000 in all prisons for convicted prisoners. In theory, they are the purpose of the inmate observation and evaluation period. Since the 2009 Prisons Act, the French Code of Criminal Procedure provides for the implementation of a PEP for each sentenced inmate. In reality, the possibility of carrying out integration measures is unlikely or impossible in remand centres.

Confidentiality is guaranteed during meetings between inmates and their lawyer, but the physical space is often very restricted.

The French Code of Criminal Procedure provides that in the event of an inmate’s death, the establishment director inform, without delay, their family or loved ones of the circumstances in which the death occurred.

The remains of a person who dies while in custody are treated with dignity and returned to the family.

Cases of ill-treatments have been registered.

The existing regulations provide for protections against physical and verbal abuse and against sexual harassment among inmates. Inmates who are victims of violence are often placed in solitary confinement in order to ensure their safety, but this is not considered a satisfactory long-term solution.

Violence is exacerbated by overpopulation, the lack of privacy and recent choices in designing the institutions (such as architecture, limited contact between guards and inmates and the large size of the prisons).

Inmates are allowed to make complaints against the prison administration, especially for abuse of power or if they are victims of a criminal offence. Like any citizen, inmates may file a complaint before the criminal courts. They can also refer to various regulatory agencies that are capable of carrying out investigations outside of the justice system. The inmate who wishes to file a complaint must send a letter directly to either the public prosecutor for the place of detention, which is the recommended option, or to the closest gendarmerie or police station. The complaint must be submitted within a certain period, and it is best to send it as soon as possible. It may be sent in a sealed envelope. The inmate can also speak to the administrative and judicial authorities – investigating judges, sentence enforcement judges, children’s court judges, MPs, etc.
In a judgement delivered on 30 January 2020, the European Court of Human Rights held that “preventive remedies in place – an urgent application to protect a fundamental freedom and an urgent application for appropriate measures – were ineffective in practice”. It considered that prisoners did not have the adequate means to bring about the “full and immediate cessation” of breaches of fundamental rights. The Court stated that the powers of administrative judges to make orders were “limited in scope”.

It is difficult to quantify the number of complaints against the administration due to pressure, difficulty accessing the procedure, and the absence of statistics.

The Controller-General for Places of Deprivation of Liberty (Contrôleure générale des lieux de privation de liberté) may be referred to by any individual, any legal entity working for the protection of fundamental rights, or public authorities. The Controller-General may also self-refer. He must be referred to by letter, addressed to his office. Referrals carried out by telephone, email or any other method must be confirmed by post. The exchange of correspondence with the Controller and his team is confidential. For several years, the Controller has reported cases of non-compliance of this principle as well as suspicions of repercussions faced by inmates who have referred to him.

A mechanism is in place for following up on the NPM’s recommendations. Each visit to an institution by the Controller-General is the subject of a report, drawn up in several steps. An interim report is sent to the director of the establishment, which the Controller then approves and sends to the competent ministers. These ministers have a period of five weeks to nine months to respond to the report. The visit report as well as the ministers’ observations may then be published on the website of the Controller-General. A new visit can be completed in order to follow up and confirm that the recommendations were put into effect.
The Controller-General brings all evidence to suggest the existence of a criminal infraction to the attention of the prosecutor of the Republic. The prosecutor informs the disciplinary authorities of the evidence in order to establish criminal proceedings.

The assessments of the NPM are judged in keeping with those of civil society organisations. Organisations working for the defence of human rights maintain regular relations with this institution, which benefits from a real credit.

Facilities are subject to other external control mechanisms:

• The Défenseur des droits intervenes in prisons under its four missions: combating discrimination, defending children’s rights, relations with the administration and security ethics. The Human Rights Defender may receive complaints from detainees or their families.
• administrative inspectorates (Inspectorate General of Justice (IGJ), Labour Inspectorate, Inspectorate General of Social Affairs, etc.)
• members of parliament and senators
• members of the European Parliament elected in France
• judges (juge des libertés et de la détention, juge d’instruction, juge de l’application des peines, juge des enfants, etc.) and public prosecutors (procureur général and procureur de la République) must visit each prison in their jurisdiction at least once a year.
• institutional review boards also conduct visits. An assessment committee is put into place with each institution, composed of the prefect; leading figures in the département, such as lawyers or mayors; and members of civil society, such as chaplains and representatives of organisations. The committee evaluates the operating conditions of the institutions and makes suggestions on how to improve them. The activity of the review board appears to be very modest.

The majority of referrals originate from prisoners or their loved ones. Referrals principally concern transfers, living conditions, staff/prisoner relationships, access to care and relations with the outside world.

Sentence adjustments are made by the sentence enforcement courts. Decisions are based mainly on the existence of employment, housing, vocational training and family ties.

The 15 August 2014 Act provides for non-custodial sentences and for release under constraint. A non-custodial sentence is used as an alternative to imprisonment and release under constraint is a way of making gradual release the norm. These two measures are slow to be implemented.
The changes made to the rules for allotting places in emergency housing in 2016 make it difficult for people who are putting together a conditional release application to find housing prior to release¹. In the Paris region people who are homeless or have no one to stay with cannot benefit from conditional release.

Ad hoc adjustments are possible for two specific groups: those who are seriously ill and pregnant women. Detention may be avoided under certain conditions according to a specific procedure, known as suspension of sentence.

Prisoners at end-of-life can benefit from conditional release. Another sentence adjustment available for medical reasons allows prisoners with a life-threatening prognosis to spend their final days with loved ones. These procedures are not always adopted, mostly, because of the lack of housing upon release.
The Senate report on the cost of prison health care re-iterated social workers are responsible for finding housing upon release, especially in residential care facilities for dependent seniors. In practice, the latter are often reluctant to accept released inmates.