which prohibits any control of correspondence between the prison population and this independent government agency with specific regulatory powers. Similarly, the Contrôleur Général des Lieux de Privation de Liberté is not systematically mentioned on the list of bodies exempted from the rule of systematic monitoring of prisoners’ telephone communications, even in booklets for new arrivals. Finally, whereas the Annual Report is systematically sent to each institution, it is rare for it to be available in the library. Under the terms of article 6 of the Prisons Act, a representative of the Médiateur de la République independent government agency with specific regulatory powers is appointed within each prison. In the course of the year 2011, the Défenseur des Droits ombudsman took over the remit of the Médiateur de la République. In 2012, almost 150 representatives of the Défenseur des Droits ombudsman were present in 164 prison sites on a regular or case-by-case basis154. The inspectors noted that the brochures previously designed by the Médiateur de la République for the prison population, were updated (by the Défenseur des Droits ombudsman) at the end of the year 2013. The majority of cases referred to representatives of the Défenseur des Droits ombudsman are not concerned with difficulties related to prison (many claims are concerned with the loss of personal belongings) but with external disputes with the public services (tax, social security, family allowance office, retirement pensions, residence permit services). 7. Access and Rights in relation to Healthcare: deliberately overlooked? Access to healthcare for prisoners has been a major concern of the prisons administration since the 1980s. Act no. 94-43 of 18th of January 1994, concerning the provision of healthcare to prisoners thus constituted a major step forward in the provision of healthcare. Its implementation, which was fully completed at the end of the 2000s, made it possible to highlight a number of shortcomings155, access to dental treatment and replacement therapies are two examples. These were partly corrected by Act no. 2002-303 of 4th March 2002, however the difficulty of application of certain articles has still not been resolved, such as the incompatibility of maintenance in prison with medical imperatives. In 2007, for its part, the Prisons Act Planning Select Committee (Comité d'orientation restreint) identified 14 points156, which it considered essential in the provision of healthcare to prisoners. The Prisons Act of 2009 includes articles of principle concerning prisoners’ health and did not take up any of the Planning Select Committee’s (COR) recommendations. Moreover, section 7 of the Act, which concerns health, only deals with provision of treatment to persons 154 Summary Report (Rapport d’information) no. 629 (2011-2012) presented by Mr Jean-René LECERF and Mrs Nicole BORVO COHEN-SEAT, op. cit. 155 Annual Report for 2012 of the Contrôleur Général des lieux de privation de liberté. Access to Healthcare – p. 223. 156 Priority and place of treatment in prison life; choice of doctor; continuation of treatment begun outside; right to termination of pregnancy; treatment providing comfort or aesthetic benefits; treatment for which the patient is financially responsible; role of the MISP Public Health Medical Inspector (Médecin inspecteur de santé publique); treatment without consent; disability and stays in prison; provision of information to the medical profession; medical secrecy: access to medical records; annual examination of persons over 75 years of age; prevention of suicide risks. 109