2. A look back at a selection of opinions and recommendations from before 2016 2.1 The action taken following the recommendations bearing on CCTV surveillance made in the CGLPL's 2009 annual report The CGLPL had the opportunity to give its opinion on the use of CCTV surveillance in its 2009 annual report. On this occasion it had pointed out that some places of deprivation of liberty called for careful attention to be paid to the issue of the respect of privacy of prisoners, prisoners, people in custody or hospitalised without consent. It had particularly stressed that "accommodation facilities – which represent the places where people in detention live, as their home – must not be equipped with CCTV cameras. In prisons, the concealment of peepholes has been very commonly observed, and this shows that observ ation in cells – even just a warder's glance through this opening – is seen as an intrusion in a place that is considered to form part of the person's personal space. The need to escape the prying eyes of others is also apparent in the hanging of sheets from the top bunk to create one's own private space". The Chief Inspector recalls that a similar position has been expressed by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), particularly in the report of a visit carried out in Ukraine in 2014, when it reiterated its serious misgivings about the routine installation of CCTV cameras in individual cells for prolonged periods, considering that the resources devoted to such schemes could more usefully be deployed by having staff interact more effectively with the prisoners concerned. In general, the CPT indicates that prolonged use of CCTV surveillance in cells is an invasion of the privacy and breach of the dignity of the person detained. It highlights that denying prisoners any privacy for prolonged periods is disproportionate, of no benefit from a security point of view and could amount to inhuman and degrading treatment. It appears necessary to readdress the question of CCTV camera use in cells foll owing the adoption of Act No. 2016-987 of 21 July 2016 extending the application of Act No. 55-385 of 3 April 1955 on the state of emergency and introducing stronger counter-terrorism measures. Article 9 of said Act adds to the Act of 24 November 2009 an Article 58-1 on CCTV systems in holding cells within prisons. Before this provision was passed into law, only a ruling dated 23 December 2014 provided for video surveillance 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. The registration period was limited to 24 hours straight in this context. Under the new Article 58-1 of the Prison Act, it is now possible to install a continuous CCTV surveillance system in a cell, under exceptional circumstances, for prisoners being tried for criminal offences, subject to solitary confinement, whose "escape or suicide could have major repercussions on public order given the specific circumstances of the grounds for their imprisonment and the impact of these on public opinion". Placement under video surveillance is subject to a specifically justified decision taken by the Minister of Justice, for a five-day period in an emergency, which can be then be renewed by three-monthly periods through proceedings in which both parties are heard. The Chief Inspector underscores the fact that video surveillance must be used in a way that ensures respect of individual liberties: the right to privacy, to dignity, of personal portrayal and to be forgotten. She maintains that the terms of the Act passed in July 2016 do not go far enough in 56