In his Opinion of 10th January 2011 “concerning the use of the telephone in places of deprivation of liberty”144, the Contrôleur Général had made a certain number of recommendations, of which some were taken up by the prisons Administration. However, in his Report for 2012, the Contrôleur Général still noted the improvements required in order to make it possible to guarantee the confidentiality of conversations and increase conditions of access to this right145. In addition, and in his Opinion of 26th September 2012 “concerning the implementation of the partial release system”146, the Contrôleur Général pointed out the inexplicable absence of telephone booths or simple “phone points” in independent open prisons. Mobile phones are present in large numbers in prisons, in an illegal manner, and are themselves sources of trafficking, racketeering and an internal economy which is uncontrolled by the prisons Administration. At the time of seizures, which are also very sizeable, it can be ascertained from reading the smartcard chips that these telephones are principally used for contact with family and friends and not with the objective of preparing escape plans or continuing acts of crime. Since dealing in and possession of mobile phones is not prohibited outside of prison, the application of ordinary law inside is a prospect that should not be ruled out. The Contrôleur Général therefore regrets that the purchase of mobile phones in prison shops and use thereof (with a security and control device) has neither been planned nor even trialled in prisons. 5.5 Inexplicable Non-Application of Image Rights Whereas article 41 of the Prisons Act147 is not open to any interpretation or ambiguity, it turns out that the prisons Administration applies it in its own manner; that is to say, that even if prisoners give their consent for their face to be filmed, “blurring” is almost systematically imposed upon the photographer or film maker. In his Annual Report for 2011, (section “Concerning Administrative Casualness148), the Contrôleur Général thus pointed out that “the administration itself can only oppose the broadcasting of a prisoner’s image if it has grounds (which of course have to be explicable and justified) to believe that it will cause difficulties with regard to respect for victims or the interests of the prisoner himself”. Since that time nothing has changed and the constancy of this strange position raises questions; and all the more so in that the administration appears more inclined than formerly to authorise reporting within institutions. 143 “Prisoners have the right to telephone members of their family. They can be authorised to telephone other persons in order to prepare their rehabilitation. In any case, remand prisoners shall obtain authorisation from the court. Access to the telephone can be refused, suspended or withdrawn, on grounds related to the maintenance of proper order and security and the prevention of offences and, with regard to remand prisoners, to the requirements of investigation. Control of telephone communication is carried out in accordance with article 727-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 144 Journal Officiel of 23rd January 2011. 145 Cf. section 3 of this report. 146 Journal Officiel of 23rd October 2012. 147 “Prisoners shall give their consent in writing to the broadcasting and use of their image or their voice when such broadcasting or use is likely to make it possible for them to be identified. The prisons administration can oppose the broadcasting or use of the image or voice of a convicted prisoner, when such broadcasting or such use is of such a nature as to enable their identification and when this restriction proves necessary to the maintenance of public order, the prevention of offences, and the protection of the rights of victims and those of third parties as well as the rehabilitation of the person concerned. For untried prisoners, the broadcasting and use of their image or of their voice shall be authorised by the court". 148 Annual Report four 2011, section 8 "concerning administrative casualness (allegory)", page 257. 105