institution, a health network or any other body contributing to prevention and treatment has the right to respect of their private life and to secrecy of information concerning them”. An interministerial circular171 of 21st June 2012 on the sharing of information specifies the framework and limits for the pooling of operational information between health professionals and those of the prisons administration (AP) and of the PJJ. This circular, which specifies the terms of exchange of information, in the interests of imprisoned persons, has had the consequence of discouraging doctors from taking part in meetings of the single multidisciplinary committee (CPU). In 24 institutions inspected five medical teams did not participate in the CPU. Prison conditions: overcrowding and the resulting lack of privacy and absence of private places, “signposted” consultations etc. constitute obstacles to respect for medical secrecy. The French National AIDS Council or CNS (Conseil national du sida)172 has thus been able to call into question the responsibility of health professionals in the violation of medical secrecy. No progress has been made in the establishment of a common electronic medical file173. Although some see the latter as a step forward in continuity of treatment for patients at the time of transfer from one prison another, others may think that consultation thereof will not be solely reserved to the medical profession. Similarly, the application of telemedicine174, may give rise to fears of deterioration of human relations between patients and medical personnel. More generally, the presence is to be noted among prisoners of feelings of disappointment and frustration with regard to relations between themselves and doctors and nurses. Particular tension arises when prisoners endanger their own health and bodies through acts of self-harm in protest against court decisions or internal decisions, in order for example to obtain a change of cell. 8. The Principle of Sentencing according to Defendants’ Individual Requirements: implementation thereof weakened by the prisons administration Within the framework of the elaboration of the Prisons Act, the planning select committee (COR) envisaged the adaptation of custodial sentences to the individual requirements of offenders as a will on the part of “the prisons administration to fight, on the one hand, against the harmful effects of the shortest prison sentences, implemented without regard to the convicted person’s family and social situation and, on the other hand, to make longer-term sentences part of a rehabilitation programme enabling real preparation for release.” 8.1 Sentence Enforcement Programmes remain to be defined Sentence Enforcement Programmes (PEP/parcours d’exécution de la peine) were established by paragraph 1 of article 89 of the Prisons Act of 24th of November 2009 which amended article 717-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Prisoners’ PEPs should, in principle, set out “the whole of the 171 Interministerial circular no. DGS/MC1/DGOS/R4/DAP/DPJJ/2012/94 of 21st of June 2012. Avis et rapport sur les situations médicales sans absolue confidentialité dans l’univers carcéral [“Opinion and report on medical situations lacking complete confidentiality in the prison environment”] - 12th January 1993. 173 Measure 10 action 2 of the Plan d'actions stratégique 2010-2014 “politique de santé pour les personnes sous-main de justice” 174 Measure 10 action 3: “Mettre en place un plan de développement de la télémédecine”. 172 114