family, which is also included in the law (cf. infra): indeed the prisoner virtually has to choose between placement in an individual cell and moving further away from their family ties. In addition, the prisons Administration, as flux manager and guardian of order, tends to give priority, within the framework of easing the congestion of remand prisons, to the transfer of prisoners, who are overly insubordinate, make too many demands or are described as “dangerous”, to other premises. Conversely, prisoners who mediate and calm tensions or who, in the absence of a sufficient number of officially authorised associations and professionals, provide “free” services such as public letter-writer or rights specialist will be maintained for longer in a given institution rather than being transferred in order to have the benefit of placement in an individual cell. Moreover, although requests for placement in collective cells are possible – they are often mentioned by prison staff in order to explain that placement in individual cells is not a common request among the prison population –130 they need to be treated as an exception and not as the rule. In fact, in remand prisons, the right to placement in individual cells comes up against both prison overcrowding and the lack of individualised space. 5.2 Impossibility of Moving Closer to Families in Reality Although the Prisons Act acknowledges that the maintenance of family ties constitutes an essential element for ensuring prisoners’ integration and rehabilitation, it also authorises the prisons Administration to more or less strictly control this right. In order to ensure that the place of imprisonment is not too far away from the family home and to facilitate the maintenance of family ties, and visits from close friends and family in particular, the law provides for different rights for untried prisoners and convicted prisoners. As far as remand prisoners for whom the investigation is finished are concerned, they “can have the benefit of being moved closer to their families” until their trial131. Whatever their status (untried or convicted), prisoners should be able to have the benefit of the right of maintenance of relations with the members of their family132. The importance of family ties133 is recalled by the law thus: “Family life units and family visiting rooms established within prisons can cater for any prisoner. Any prisoner can have the benefit at their request of at least one quarterly visit in a family life unit or a family visiting room, whose duration is fixed taking the distance of the visitor’s residence from the institution into account. For untried prisoners, this right is exercised subject to agreement from the competent court. In the circular from the Minister of Justice of 21st of February 2012 concerning the orientation of prisoners in penal institutions, the first criteria of assignment for convicted prisoners is their dangerousness, a “particularly decisive” criterion. The maintenance of family ties is the second criterion, referred to, for its part, as “essential”. 130 Moreover, how can the level of importance of this request be assessed as long as prisoners’ rights of expression are not effective? 131 Article 34 of the Prisons Act. 132 Article 35 of the Prisons Act: “The right of prisoners to the maintenance of relations with the members of their family is exercised either by visits that the latter make to them, or, for convicted prisoners and if their criminal situation so permits, by temporary releases from penal institutions. Untried prisoners can be visited by the members of their family or other persons, at least three times per week, and convicted prisoners at least once per week". 133 Article 36 of the Prisons Act. 102