slowness of movement, the difficulty of reaching premises that are, in principle, open to all and the distance imposed upon prisoners confined to their accommodation sectors. This contemporary prison model – “the industrialisation of captivity” (Jean-Marie Delarue) – was described in the 2013 Annual Report of the CGLPL, in particular from the point of view of prisons with sections incorporating different kinds of prison regime, which group together remand, long-term detention, long-stay prison, open and reduced sentence wings… – in separate but virtually identical buildings – and separate wings accommodating categories of persons between whom communication is strictly prohibited (men/women, adults/minors): “The segmentation of spaces has led to the creation of many obstacles and made long access routes inevitable, with large numbers of doors and bars – seventeen, in one institution inspected, between the main entrance and the door of the cell! – as well as interminable waiting times in real bottlenecks caused by a remote-controlled electrical opening system which makes the opening of one door an obstacle to the simultaneous opening of another”. These new buildings, concrete premises where the prison population is increasingly grouped together according to categories or “profiles”, contrast with the institutions for convicted prisoners of the past – in general long-term detention centres – with large external areas and considerable collective facilities. In the latter, persons are not dealt with according to the nature of their offence or their age, but according to their ability to achieve autonomy. Although, due to the relative age of these institutions, today they do not appear to be “up to the mark”, it would be worthwhile consolidating and developing the principles promoted by the special kind of relation to space and autonomy found in them. On several occasions, the CGLPL has already made known its position in favour of prisons of limited size which, from an architectural point of view, encourage prisoners’ autonomy. It here reaffirms this position. 1.1.2 A Prison Regime that prioritises Personal Security and Autonomy The prevailing regime in remand prisons is closed-door, individual cell placement, subject to the application of articles 716 and 717-2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Conversely, with regard to the prison regime for long-stay prisons and long-term detention centres, the Code of Criminal Procedure asserts the same objective of “social rehabilitation” for all convicted prisoners, without making any real distinction between the two types of institution: “Long-stay prisons and longstay wings have a reinforced organisation and security regime, whose details of internal implementation also enable maintenance and development of the possibilities of social rehabilitation for convicted prisoners” (Article D. 71); “Long-term detention centres have a regime principally oriented towards social rehabilitation and, where appropriate, the preparation of convicted prisoners for release” (Article D. 72). 1.1.2.1 The Closed Regime in Long-Stay Prisons and Remand Prisons For security reasons, remand prisons and long-stay prisons function, in principle (with more or less strictness), according to the so-called “closed doors” regime, as opposed to the “open doors” regime prevailing in long-term detention centres. This regime is hardly conducive to sociability and solidarity. The cell doors are opened several times a day in order to go to activities or to the exercise yard. Apart from these movements, the doors are closed. However, in long-stay prisons, prisoners can choose whether to stay inside their cells – with the exception of mealtimes, the end of the afternoon and at night, when they have to be inside their cells. 85