confinement and unfavourable individual decisions notified to prisoners. The inspection authorities sometimes have difficulty in accomplishing their duties. 6.1 Disciplinary Proceedings that leave Room for Improvement (on this point see the section devoted to this topic in the Annual Report for 2012153) 6.2 Solitary Confinement, a Uniform and Often Inappropriate Solution Article 92 of the Prisons Act provides for the possibility of placing any prisoner (except minors) under the solitary confinement regime. The inspectors noted that the inter partes proceedings provided for by law, the implementing decree of 23rd December 2010 and the circular of 14th April 2011 were, in almost all cases, complied with. The solitary confinement regime is in most cases uniform in virtually all prisons: solitary cell placement, exercise and activities carried out alone. Nonetheless, the decree of 23rd of December 2010 encourages heads of institutions to organise, “insofar as possible and according to the prisoner's personality, common activities for persons placed in solitary confinement”. It can only be noted that these provisions are rarely implemented: persons in solitary confinement are often placed in activity rooms and exercise yards on their own. Certain psychologically fragile persons may find these conditions of detention very hard. Article 92 of the Prisons Act in fine provides that prisoners placed under the solitary confinement regime may refer their case as an urgent application to the administrative judge. The inspectors have noted that prisoners were not informed of the existence of these provisions, which are not mentioned in any document. In fact, urgent applications to judges against solitary confinement measures are extremely rare. The majority of prisoners are placed under the solitary confinement regime at their own request. In most cases, these are persons subject to hostility from the prison population due to the nature of the offence committed (sexual offences), the previously exercised profession (membership of the police) or their psychological frailty (easy prey for the habitual racketeers within prisons). These persons are subject to a more severe detention regime than other prisoners. The Contrôle Général questions the pertinence of placing these fragile persons under the solitary confinement regime. It would probably be preferable to organise prisons differently and accommodate fragile persons in specific wings to which access would be protected. They would then be able to have the benefit of a social life inside this wing, being grouped together in exercise yards and during activities. In order to attenuate the negative psychological effects of placement in solitary confinement and maintain a minimum of social life, prisoners placed under the solitary confinement regime should be able, according to their personality and dangerousness, to have the benefit of a regime enabling them to come together at the time of activities and exercise. 153 P. 129 et seq. 107