Overseas, having a theoretical capacity of 504, an institution instead had 607 beds and an additional 132 mattresses placed on the ground. In another, the theoretical capacity was 130 beds and the actual number of beds was 244; the number of detainees at the time of the visit was 185, i.e. an occupancy rate of 142%. In the other visited institutions, overcrowding is frequent, but not as bad. In principle, it is managed by setting up additional beds. For example, in a remand prison, despite an occupancy rate of 171%, every detainee had a bed. The same applies in several recent institutions, where additional beds were set up from the start in all of the individual cells, so that there would never be any need to spread a mattress on the ground. However, there are a few exceptions to this practice: setting up mattresses on the ground is sometimes necessary. In these conditions, the right to individual cells seems to be an exception rather than the norm in remand prisons for men. The proportion of persons benefiting from an individual cell in remand prisons is approximately 13%, while in other institutions it can go up to one-quarter, or even one-third. On the other hand, this right is generally respected in detention centres. The situation observed today is therefore not very different from what was observed in 2012 and 2014, which had led the CGLPL to send opinions to the Government on prison overcrowding4 and on individual cells in penal institutions5. Its consequences are well known: overcrowding aggravates lack of privacy and risks of conflict in the cells, reinforces inaction due to a more difficult access to work or activities, reduces the possibility of communication and treatment by the prison officers and the option of having relationships outside the prison (telephone, visiting rooms); it also reduces the effectiveness of reintegration efforts and worsens access to healthcare, sometimes to great extents. It deteriorates the working conditions of the staff, even more so as the staff strength is calculated according to a number of detainees that is equal to the number of places, which is probably what provokes the current vivid sense of neglect. However, there does not seem to be any serious measure to help fight against the regular increase in prison overcrowding. The principle of individual cells became part of the law on 5 June 1875, which was when the people wished to keep defendants and the accused separate at all times for the purpose of preventing repeated offences by preventing “moral contagion”. The Prisons Act of 2009 set a period of five years to execute this objective, which has been pending for close to 131 years now. The moratorium lasted till 24 November 2014. According to the law, the State must, by this date, be able to guarantee an individual cell to each detainee. And yet, with respect to the number of people sent to prison on this date, there are 17,592 lacking cells. A new moratorium, the fourth since 1875, therefore pushed the objective to 2019. When voting on it, the Government announced the creation of new prison places, with 6,300 having already been financed and 3,200 that are likely to be financed shortly. However, the official forecasts of the Government do not imply a serious perspective of improvement. Thus, the budget proposal of the Minstry of Justice for 2016, which does not list managing overcrowding as one of its strategic objectives, includes construction projects that do not correspond to the announced objectives: “The real-estate programme of the Minstry of Justice plans for the closing of dilapidated institutions, the opening of new institutions and the launch of new projects that allow restructuring or constructing new structures with the creation of 2,298 places net during the period of 2015-2017, of which 216 will be created in 2016”.6 4 Opinion dated 22 May 2012 pertaining to the number of detainees. Opinion dated 24 March 2014 pertaining to the use of individual cells in prisons 6 Annual performance project for 2016, p. 82. 5 23