In response, the Ministry informed the CGLPL of the need to engage in reflection with the prisons administration with regard to major issues of coordination and practical implementation of legal rules concerning social and prison issues. The CGLPL will continue to play close attention to actions taken with regard to this issue and will make sure that the solution reached, while enabling effective implementation of article 718 of the CPP, does not prejudice the welfare rights enjoyed by prisoners. Finally, it should be noted that the circular concerning application of the provisions for the remuneration of prisoners under the Prisons Act of 24th November 2009 has still not been published, despite the prisons administration’s repeated announcements. 4.2.3 When the principle of sectorial division prejudices patients’ rights and health In the Opinion of 17th January 2013 concerning unjustified stays in units for difficult psychiatric patients (UMD), the Contrôleur Général recommended the elaboration of a procedure enabling the regional health agency concerned (or, in case of several agencies, the central administration), to which the case is referred in due time by the management of the UMD, to take care of immediately determining, in case of doubt, the institution to which the patient is to be returned, the fundamental criterion to be followed in this respect being the patient’s capacity for rehabilitation, in particular with regard to the latter’s family relations, the prefect of the department thus established then immediately issuing the necessary order. Yet, in the absence of instructions issued at national level 35, situations endangering the health of patients have once again been brought to the attention of the CGLPL. By way of example, one person imprisoned in an institution in region A (close to the person’s place of residence and family) and then transferred by the prisons administration to an institution in region B due to the undertaking of work in the first institution, was subject to a measure of hospitalisation without consent followed by committal to UMD 1. During their UMD stay, their transfer to UMD 2, closer to their relations, was considered, but could not be carried out due to their release from prison. On discharge from UMD 1, the person was once again committed to the hospital of region B, in which they had been hospitalised prior to their committal to the UMD. The hospital in region A refused the transfer request on the grounds that the patient had no proof of being a permanent resident of its sector, without taking into account the fact that the person’s presence in region B was entirely independent of their will, that they therefore had no ties whatsoever in the latter region and that this situation, insofar as it was a source of misunderstanding and frustration, was highly prejudicial to their health and the maintenance of their family ties. The CGLPL therefore repeats its recommendation that, in situations of this kind, the institution to which the person is committed should be determined by the regional health agency or the central administration and should not be subject to inevitably fruitless negotiations between two hospitals with divergent “interests”. 35 The Opinion of 17th January 2013 has not given rise to any observations on the part of the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs. 39