interpretation made the exception the rule. The example of searches is also emblematic in this respect. The prisons administration has not always had the means to apply the Act in all of its dimensions. The context of economic crisis was certainly burdensome and human resources were lacking. Putting an activities obligation in place (article 27) without defining it, in a difficult economic context in terms of access to professional activity, employment and training, proved to be an impossible task. Exercise, healthcare and religious worship thus sometimes became “activities” in the arguments of prison staff: an admission of weakness as well as of great confusion. The implementation of the Act was poorly supported by the central administration which allowed major disparities to develop in its application (whereas one of the objectives of this Act was indeed to put an end to differences between institutions). As far as the practice of searches is concerned, numerous judgements from the administrative courts were necessary before the prisons administration finally began to take notice of the legal texts governing the matter. Dignity and respect for fundamental rights nevertheless also benefitted from the Prisons Act, as shown by the considerations set out above. The law has reached the inside of prisons in a more assertive manner. It has been possible for a part of the citizenship of prisoners to be exercised. The Prisons Act has also led to doubts and uncertainties, which make questioning and therefore future changes necessary. It is necessary to correct the imperfections of the current text and also to give it an even more ambitious dimension. Above all, it is urgent to take practices into account so that the law does not remain a dead letter, giving rise to disappointed hopes and flareups of protest. 126