The night rounds policy can be applied to vulnerable prisoners, with suicidal ideas, in order to protect their physical integrity, and to prisoners who are considered dangerous, to guarantee security within the institution. As regards the people subject to a specific surveillance to protect their physical integrity, the Chief Inspectorate had already indicated, in its 2010 annual report, that “the people subject to special surveillance at night (risk of suicide), i.e. rounds that include frequent checks through the peepholes, are forced, when the light is switched on, to show that they are still alive (e.g. lift a hand); this measure is so contrary to what is needed (the person remaining tranquil), that several warders spontaneously refrain from carrying out this duty, which naturally wakes up the sleeper frequently”. It was therefore recommended for the practices to be harmonised “in order to protect sleep, even at the cost of a less effective surveillance”. Concerning prisoners who are deemed dangerous, waking them up several times at night, for long periods sometimes, is likely to violate their rights to physical integrity and dignity, and will constitute inhuman and degrading treatment, all the more so as other measures (checking of the bars, allocation of cells close to the guard posts, etc.) are already implemented simultaneously, to ensure the security of the institution and prevent jailbreaks. In its response dated 2 February 2016, the Prison Administration Department said that it was considering drafting a new document setting the terms and frequencies governing night rounds. At the time this report was being written, the Chief Inspector is still waiting for the publication of this text. She therefore reiterates her recommendations regarding the adoption of measures that respect prisoners' right to rest, especially concerning people who are prone to a sense of ill -being that could give rise to suicidal ideas. 2.3 Deductions in favour of the Treasury The referrals of several prisoners subject to deductions in favour of the Treasury from their personal account due to the deterioration of property belonging to the prison administration highlighted three major difficulties: determining accountability for the deteriorations, determining the compensation amount and the methods of seizure. Pursuant to the amended Act of 30 October 2007, in May 2015 the Chief inspector wished to know the observations of the Prison Administration Department and to recommend that a stricter legal framework be planned. Despite the absence of any response on the part of the Prison Administration Department, the inspectors were able to note during their inspections of prisons that no further deductions in favour of the Treasury had been carried out since Decision No. 375426 issued by the Conseil d’Etat on 10 February 2016. In this decision, the Conseil d'Etat criticised the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code on deductions, "considering that the provisions of the first two paragraphs of Article D.332 of said Code enable the prison administration, in compensation for material damage caused by a prisoner, to automatically deduct amounts from the latter's disposable part and to pay the corresponding sums to the Treasury; that the regulatory authority is not competent to authorise a deprivation of the right to property in this way; that none of the provisions in Article 728-1 of the Criminal Procedure Code nor any other legislative provision authorise the regulatory authority to that end; that, subsequently, by refusing to repeal the contentious provisions, the Minister of Justice has erred in law". A new legal framework has been laid by Article 105 of Act No. 2016-731 of 3 June 2016 scaling up the fight against organise crime, terrorism and their financing, by improving the effectiveness and guarantees of criminal procedure, thereby amending Article 728-1 of the Criminal 74