“dignity” of the prisoner, one can only note that exclusion affects access to activities (socioeducational, sports and professional activities etc.). Within certain institutions for convicted prisoners visited, the inspectors noted that a specific schedule limiting access to the exercise yard and activities had been set up for persons under the closed regime; the possibilities of moving about being linked to the presence of warders in order to open doors and accompany prisoners to the activity sectors. By way of example, in one institution in the South of France, the inspectors noted that no sport timeslot was reserved for the closed regime. Although these situations remain exceptional, they nonetheless remain problematic and contrary to the provisions of the aforementioned article. Furthermore, in numerous institutions, it was noted that a considerable number of persons placed under the closed regime were so placed at their own request, in order to escape the climate reigning on the open-door floors. This situation ends up by diverting the differentiated regime from its objective since it is the most peaceful and vulnerable persons who find themselves under the closed regime. The existence of a wing dedicated to vulnerable persons is a solution which has been introduced in certain institutions. It also makes it possible to resort to solitary confinement less often. However, it raises questions with regard to the stigmatisation of a certain category of prisoners. Moreover, until a recent period, placements in differentiated regimes were not likely to give rise to applications for remedy of abuse of power before the administrative judge; these decisions being considered to be measures of internal order. In 2011, the Council of State declared itself competent to rule on placements under “closed doors” regimes while asserting that such placements “do not affect their rights of access to professional training, paid employment, physical and sports activities and exercise yards”186. It is to be regretted that the Council of State found that decisions of placement in closed regimes do not come within the field of application of Act no. 79-587 of 11th July 1979 concerning the justification of administrative acts. This position means that the head of the institution is not bound to organise an inter partes hearing in application of article 24 of Act no. 2000-321 of 12th April 2000 at the time of the decision, whereas, according to the findings made by the inspectors, this definitely goes against the person concerned. Indeed, this inevitably affects the prisoner’s conditions of detention. Within the framework of placement under special prison regimes and basing itself upon European prison rules, the European Court of Human Rights considers that restrictions imposed upon prisoners can be treated as disputes regarding rights and obligations of a civil character, which imposes the necessity of respecting the guarantees provided for under article 6 of the Convention187. Finally, it should be emphasised that long-stay prisons, for their part, decided upon the permanent closure of cell doors in 2003, following the occurrence of serious incidents in one of them. At the time of their visits to long-stay prisons, the inspectors noted that this instruction is very often made more flexible in the interests of both the prisoners and staff, who acknowledge that strict implementation of the “closed doors” regime does not fulfil its supposed goal of guaranteeing security, because of the amount of tension that it eventually generates, which increases exponentially with regard to persons serving long sentences. When the question of complete closing of doors in a long-stay prison was referred to the Contrôleur Général the latter requested the observations of the director of the prisons administration Department with regard to the legality of such systematic closure, in view of article 89 of the Prisons Act of 24th of November 2009. In response, it was pointed out that the recidivism and protection of the interests of victims. These restrictions take into account the prisoner’s age, state of health, disability and personality.” 186 CE 28th March 2011, no. 316 977. Ruling confirmed by CE 24th August 2011, no. 341 240. 187 ECtHR 17th Sept. 2009, Enea vs. Italy, req. no. 74912/01. 120