becomes optional even when more than two years of the sentence remain to be served196. The latter approach, apart from the fact that it is not in accordance with the provisions of article D.75 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, can prove problematic in case of refusal of the prisoner’s application for reduced sentencing; however, it offers a certain flexibility to enable maintenance in remand prisons, in view of the specific situation of certain persons. Conversely, the situation of persons subject to expeditious transfers, has come to the Contrôleur Général’s attention, imposed in order to prevent them from taking advantage of the right to stay in remand prisons, for reasons of prison management. Cases were referred to the Contrôleur Général, from the first months of application of the Prisons Act, concerning the difficulties of implementation of article 88. In the first place, the opinion of the judge responsible for the execution of sentences mentioned in the orientation file proved to have lapsed due to the long period between the putting together of the file and the execution of the assignment decision. Moreover, prisoners did not, in fact, have the possibility of invoking the provisions of the law, being in general informed of their effective transfer at the last minute. In order to offset this difficulty, the prisons administration Department asked registries to systematically verify the existence of hearings scheduled before the sentence board for prisoners to be transferred197. The inspectors ascertained that, in remand prisons of the Centre of France, the week before execution of transfers, the services of the DISP send an email to the registry of the remand prison in order to find out whether any factor currently stands in the way of the person’s departure (planned temporary release, simplified reduced sentencing procedure or electronic tagging for the end of the sentence in course, entering of the case in the sentence board register etc.). In case of the filing of an application for reduced sentencing, the transfer is suspended. In one institution in the South of France, the registry keeps a file of the follow-up of reduced sentencing applications, which it consults before each transfer. However, this procedure is not sufficient insofar as persons may make applications for reduced sentencing directly to the judge responsible for the execution of sentences (JAP), without the registry being informed of their application. Following a case taken up by the Contrôleur Général, the head of an institution indicated that an agreement had been established with the judges responsible for the execution of sentences that, henceforth, the court registrar would inform the institution of applications made directly to the court. This procedure should be brought into general use. In spite of the putting in place of these procedures, the Contrôleur Général observes that persons eligible for reduced sentencing continued to be transferred to other institutions. 8.3.3 The Difficulties of Implementation of the Right of Assignment More than three years after the coming into force of the Prisons Act, it appears that, due to their occupancy rates, several penal institutions for convicted prisoners are still unable to implement the prescriptions of article 88. 196 It should be noted that the circular provides for the possibility of exemption from compulsory orientation if "the seriousness of the formalities in course for the construction of an integration and rehabilitation project [make it possible] to envisage a reduced sentencing procedure in the short term". 197 Note issued by the DAP at 8th June 2011. 123