relation. He suggested to the management that he might carry out the sewing repairs under the surveillance of prison staff, in premises such as the laundry room; this solution was rejected. On the other hand, it was suggested that he might hand over his worn clothes for the women in the remand wing to repair within the framework of their “dressmaking” workshop. Apart from the somewhat sexist character of this “solution”, it raises questions about the balance between security and autonomy. 1.2.2 Right to Privacy Respect for the right to privacy presupposes the existence of an area where persons can escape from other people’s view and be free of the rules pertaining to public areas. In the case of prisons, this area is of course the cell. However, in practice, cell life remains subject to a large number of constraints, which place limits upon personal autonomy. The liberties allowed to prisoners with regard to arranging their cells differs from one institution to another, in particular in institutions for convicted prisoners, without any question of personalisation of practices or adaptation of the rules to the types of profiles catered for within different institutions. By way of example, the cells in the long-term detention wing of one institution of the French overseas departments and territories do not have enough furniture and facilities to enable prisoners to put their possessions away; moreover it is prohibited to purchase or make one’s own furniture within the institution. Conversely, in one long-term detention centre in the South-West of France, prisoners are permitted to repaint the cell in which they are accommodated, order items of bedding and buy items of furniture in prison shops, as well as being able to make furniture themselves. However, the considerable scope thus left for autonomy has certain negative consequences: the difficulties of gaining access to basic items of furniture for non-autonomous and/or uninitiated persons; the question of transport of this furniture at the time of transfers etc. The rules applied in most long-term detention centres are relaxed as far as autonomy is concerned: prisoners having the right to procure curtains in order to block off windows at night, to have the key to a “convenience lock” 64, making it possible to lock the private area constituted by the cell, to receive visits from fellow prisoners in the cell and to cultivate a horticultural area etc. However, measures of this kind are not adopted in all institutions, without it being possible to identify any reason for this. Some of them, despite having been pioneers with regard to allowing prisoners autonomy, have recently abandoned these practices: removal of curtains and green plants, sudden impossibility of making or possessing handmade furniture, standardisation of items supposed to be present in common areas, withdrawal of foodstuffs stored in common areas, sudden prohibition of previously authorised items etc. The CGLPL questions the reasons for a regression of this kind. The CGLPL recommends that the initial aim of these institutions should continue to be respected and that measures promoting autonomy should be maintained and brought into general use in other institutions for convicted prisoners. The issue of autonomy in cells should be placed in perspective with the fact that, when individual initiative is hindered and the acquisition of items of daily life prohibited, the rules are in general circumvented. Portable stoves thus spring up everywhere in prisons when hotplates are prohibited, lamps made from food tins appear when the lighting provided is inadequate and home-made curtains made from bath towels when net curtains are not authorised etc. 64 Which is only useful if it works properly, which was not the case in certain institutions visited by the CGLPL. 92