prayer, and submission to prison rules, which left no place for any individual autonomy outside of the cell. An examination of articles 22 and 100 of the Prisons Act of 24th November 2009 shows that the notion of placement in individual cells no longer has the same meaning today. Originally intended as a punitive measure, individual cell placement has now become a demand relating to human dignity and protection of the person and a guarantee of respect for their privacy and physical well-being. The objective of social rehabilitation, for its part, appeared after the Liberation, at the time of the Amor Reform of 1945. It authorised forms of collective life, even making the latter a principle of the new penal system. This period marks the beginning of a real opening of prisons with the development of health care, education, vocational training and leisure activity schemes etc. within institutions and the involvement of new actors (members of the national legal service, social workers, associations and companies etc.), including within the actual prison staff. The Prisons Act of 24th November 2009 resulted from these changes. Article 1 of the Act assigns an objective to the deprivation of liberty and states that: “The regime of enforcement of custodial sentences reconciles the protection of society, the punishment of the convicted prisoners and the interests of victims, with the need to prepare the prisoner’s integration and rehabilitation in order to enable them to lead a responsible life and prevent the commission of new offences”. Moreover, article 2 assigns a very different mission to the prisons administration than that of 1875: “The public prisons service contributes to the execution of criminal judgements. It contributes to the integration and rehabilitation of persons entrusted to it by the courts, to the prevention of recidivism and to public security, in accordance with the interests of society, victims’ rights and prisoners’ rights. It is organised in such a way as to ensure adaptation of sentences to individual requirements and reduction of convicted prisoners’ sentences.” The CGLPL finds that, generally speaking the organisation of imprisonment does not fulfil the objective of promoting prisoners’ autonomy (I), although this objective constitutes a requirement concerning them in view of their fundamental rights and, in the case of convicted prisoners, gives meaning to the serving of their sentences (II). 1.1 The Institutional Approach: an Organisation of Imprisonment that is hardly conducive to Personal Autonomy 1.1.1 Prison Architecture that does not promote Personal Autonomy 1.1.1.1 Old Institutions In spite of major renewal of France’s prisons since 1987 (following four plans for the construction of new institutions), the vast majority of remand prisons are housed in old and cramped premises, which are sometimes several centuries old, or built according to the cellular model prevailing at the end of the 19th century. In certain places, architectural layouts of this kind determine the position taken by officers: the prisoner’s “place” is in their cell and any movement is perceived as an anomaly and a constraint. It therefore perpetuates the frame of mind of 1875, that of prison as a place of penitence and punishment. Although the numerous “small” remand prisons, located in town centres, near the court to which they are administratively attached, encourage respect for certain fundamental rights, and in the first place the right to the maintenance of family ties, on the other hand they are in general hardly 83