The Minister of Justice recalls that Article 58 of the Prison Act of 24 November 2009 provides that "CCTV cameras may be installed in communal areas where there is a risk that the physical integrity of persons within prisons could be violated. This option becomes an obligation for all penal institutions that opened after this Act entered into force". It is also recalled that the aim of video protection is to ensure the security of facilities and institutions, as well as the safety of persons within, and to prevent, report and investigate criminal offences. There must be no video protection devices in treatment and search premises. In terms of cells, the Ruling of 23 December 2014 institutes personal data processing concerning video protection in emergency protection cells (known as CProU) in which prisoners are placed "whose condition appears to be incompatible with such placement or holding in an ordinary cell because of an imminent suicide risk or during an acute outburst". Devices must be set up in accordance with the CNIL's provisions. The CGLPL duly notes these measures and will ensure that they are effective. 12- Ensure strict regulation of the clearances to access the various sections of the detention management software. The Minister of Justice clarifies that clearances to access information and sections of the detention management software are issued according to the role and level of responsibility of the persons concerned. There are no unregulated blanket clearances. The GENESIS software, now in use within prisons, has been designed with this in mind. The CGLPL believes that the GENESIS software has been designed in a satisfactory manner in light of this recommendation, which it has thus removed. 13- Apply the legislation concerning individual cells, if necessary in stages. The Minister of Justice has submitted a report to Parliament on individual cells, presented on 20 September 2016, in which he drew up a clear and corroborated assessment. Enshrined in the Criminal Code since 1875, the principle of individual cell allocation has never been fully implemented. The continual rise in the prison population has resulted in prison overcrowding because of inadequate capacity: from more than 38,000 in 1980, the number of prisoners has risen to 68,253, as at 1 September 2016, for 58,507 prison places (1,439 mattresses on the ground as of this date). The report dated 20 September has but one aim: "put an end to prison overcrowding" by guaranteeing individual cell allocation, so as to clamp down on violence; improve the detention conditions and treatment of prisoners; improve the working conditions and safety of prison staff who must daily cope with a difficult and demanding work environment; and stamp out radicalisation. The prison real estate programme announced by the Prime Minister on 6 October follows on from the report on individual cells submitted to the Parliament on 20 September 2016. Its target is to achieve an 80% rate of individual cell allocation and has been put together in the twofold aim of taking a territorial approach and of integrating prisons in the city. Further, the action cannot amount merely to a real estate programme focused solely on a quantitative target. Enforcement of the prison sentence is neither an end unto itself nor a form of banishment from society; it must be geared towards preparing the prisoner for release and rehabilitation. This implies developing structures tailored to helping prisoners prepare for their release within wings given over to sentence adjustments (which are not made sufficient use of at present) and boosting probation and sentence adjustment measures, pursuant to the Act of 15 August 2014. The solution proposed thus includes a programme for fitting and laying out preparation for release wings (QPS) and the roll-out of a prison policy combining the development of alternative sentences to imprisonment with an active sentence adjustment policy. The CGLPL duly notes this plan, the implementation of which it will keep a close eye on. It recalls, however, that creating new places is not enough in itself to meet the individual cell allocation target. This must come hand-in-hand with corresponding efforts in terms of workforce and should not be a substitute for more ambitious measures such as reorienting prison policies, increasing the use of sentence adjustments and giving thought to the logic behind short sentences and the management of prisoners whose health is incompatible with detention. 166