their place of accommodation, going to activity areas and, if necessary, going from one activity to another. The CGLPL considers that bringing a mode of operation based upon differentiated regimes into general use within long-term detention centres is in contradiction with the latter’s intended purpose, which is oriented towards autonomy and rehabilitation. It therefore recommends a return to the principle of a mode of operation based upon the “open doors” regime within these institutions as a whole 61. In general, the differentiated regime combines three prison sub-regimes which often correspond to separate floors or sectors. The principle of free opening of cells throughout the day is the principal characteristic of what is variously referred to, depending upon the institution, as the regime of “trust” or “responsibility”, or simply the “open” or “common” regime; in the “intermediate”, “reduced” or “semi-open” regime, the doors are left open for half of the day (usually the afternoon); the “closed” or “controlled” regime corresponds to a remand prison regime. The autonomy allowed to individuals by the differentiated regime is therefore highly relative, including for those who, a priori, are trusted by the administration. Apart from the cell opening times, the essential issue lies in the right to share meals in cells, to have the benefit of longer timeslots for access to telephones, in particular in the middle of the day and at the end of the afternoon, and to gain access to the launderette and activity rooms more freely. Furthermore, in “long-term detention” wings (QCD /quartiers “centre de détention”) within prisons with sections incorporating different kinds of prison regime, the area in which movement is permitted is sometimes limited to the accommodation wing. If the administration does not re-establish the operation of an “open doors” regime, it should draw the logical consequences of its preference for the differentiated regime: in order for autonomy to be a reality in long-term detention wings (QCD), persons placed under the regime of trust should be granted greater responsibilities. It would thus be possible to look into several possible courses of action, which are often mentioned at the time of controls, by both prisoners and members of staff: authorisation of greater liberty of movement, enabling prisoners to leave the accommodation sector and gain access to the exercise yard and activity areas in particular; removal of the gratings on windows, since the reasons given to justify their presence always involve considerations of hygiene connected with the bad behaviour of certain prisoners; and the fitting out of kitchen facilities and real dining rooms. There are two main reasons having led to these changes. The first of these reasons is connected with the building of prisons containing long-term detention wings (QCD), placed sideby-side with wings intended for different purposes, which provided the justification for organising strict prohibition of communication. The second reason relates to the transfer of persons serving short sentences, or serving the last part of their sentences, from overcrowded remand prisons to long-term detention centres or QCD wings, in order to “reduce congestion” in the former institutions. 61 The CGLPL has already set out its position on this issue in its Annual Report for 2013, in the section on the Assessment of the Application of the Prisons Act (pages 117 et seq.) 88