of being able to leave detention – other than the presidential pardon as far as Ms F. is concerned. In this case their sentences resemble more a "whole-life order", which constitutes inhuman and degrading treatment: something that the Chief Inspector is strongly against. Along these same lines, the Chief Inspector is concerned about the creation of a new category of life sentence through Act No. 2016-731 of 3 June 2016 stepping up the fight against organised crime, terrorism and their financing, and improving the effectiveness and guarantees of the criminal procedure. The new Article 421-7 of the Criminal Code provides for the automatic application of the unconditional imprisonment period to all terrorism crimes and offences, punishable by ten years in prison. It also extends the arrangements under Article 221-3 of the Criminal Code enabling, by special decision of the Cour d’assises (French Superior Criminal Court), this unconditional imprisonment period to be extended to thirty years when a life sentence has been imposed, as well as the pronouncement of a so-called "mandatory" prison life sentence (together with an unlimited unconditional imprisonment period) if a prison life sentence is imposed. The procedure for lifting this unconditional imprisonment period is specific and extremely restrictive. It may only be lifted under exceptional circumstances and subject to five strict conditions – not least that the prisoner has served at least thirty years. This sentence therefore resembles de facto a whole-life order and opens France up to condemnation on the part of the European Court of Human Rights. 3.2 The difficulties relating to external movements and permissions to take escorted leave The Chief Inspector has received referrals on regular occasions about the difficulties in organising external movements, transfers and permissions to take escorted leave of prisoners. And yet, it appears that beyond the legal requirements they represent, such movements are fundamental given the right to maintain family ties and the respect of rights of defence. One of the reasons often cited to explain these difficulties is the gradual takeover of the organisation of such missions (which had previously been the responsibility of the gendarmerie and police forces) by the prison administration from 2011. From the many letters received in connection with these questions, it becomes clear that this takeover is not the only cause, however. Following the redefinition of the Ministry of Justice's remit, specially designated services have been set up: an "external prisoner movement" judge within each jurisdiction, an "external prisoner movement" mission (MEJ) the External Prisoner Movement Regulation and Organisation Authority (ARPEJ) and Affiliation Units for External Prisoner Movements (PREJ). But for all that the Chief Inspector has observed persistent dithering over who the competent authority should be for enforcing the legal decisions concerning transfers and authorisations for escorted leave. These difficulties are not new; they persist even though the Ministry of Justice's remit has been clarified by dispatches published on 7 May and 27 July 2015. The Chief Inspector has particularly received referrals on a number of occasions concerning situations where the transfer ordered by an examining judge had not been carried out several months after the decision because of a lack of communication between the prison authorities and law enforcement – each party thought the other was competent on the matter. Upon receiving a request from the Chief Inspector concerning the nonperformance of a transfer order issued for the purposes of spending time with family, the prison administration replied that, insofar as the judge had omitted to clearly indicate the authority in charge of carrying out his decision, "it was not for their services to question the judicial authority as to the opportunity or legitimacy it possesses to order a transfer". 79