Dignity is more than a right: it is a condition inherent to the human being. Every human being has their dignity and there is no justification for violating respect for this dignity. This principle is incorporated in article 22 of the Prisons Act: only the exercise of rights – and not respect for dignity – may be subject to restrictions. Yet, the dignity of prisoners is not properly respected today, with far from negligible consequences in terms of autonomy. By way of example, with regard to the autonomy of disabled persons, the inspectors noted that numerous prisons did not have real cells adapted to persons with restricted mobility (PMR /personnes à mobilité réduite); the latter are obliged to live in cells without any support bars next to the toilets, in which it is impossible to move around in a wheelchair and where the alarm button and intercom device are not placed at wheelchair height etc. Furthermore, these persons are often compelled to remain in their cell or on their floor, due to the fact that in certain institutions access to the lift is prohibited for them (leading to limitations in terms of access to activities, visiting rooms etc.). Although most PMR cells are located on the ground floor, the “closed doors” regime generally applied in this sector results in a de facto limitation of their autonomy and increases their isolation. Following the recommendations issued in the section on architecture in its Annual Report for the year 2013, the CGLPL reasserts its position with regard to the fitting out of spaces designed to cater for persons with restricted mobility. Certain persons suffering from physical or mental disabilities are no longer capable of keeping themselves or their cells clean, and sometimes live in disgracefully dirty conditions without anything being organised to make up for this loss of autonomy. In the absence of home help schemes, the expedient resorted to is often that of fellow prisoners helping fragile and dependent persons, whether voluntarily or not. The CGLPL recalls the recommendations issued in its Annual Report for 2011, in the section on access to welfare rights for persons deprived of liberty, and considers that aged and dependent persons should be catered for under conditions similar to those that they would encounter in a free environment. Certain basic hygiene products, such as toilet paper, are (more or less systematically) distributed, without any regard to determining whether the quantity distributed is adequate. It would be more judicious and respectful of the dignity and autonomy of the person to regularly issue free distribution vouchers, enabling each person to take care of their own hygiene and order what they actually need. It is regrettable that all prisoners cannot take charge of cleaning their own clothes: either by making a washing machine, tumble dryer and ironing facilities available, or by putting in place a system for leaving string bags of dirty linen and picking up clean linen at an office counter. Schemes of this kind should be put in place everywhere. Respect for the dignity of all also involves being able to make choices with regard to the repair of one’s clothes. For example, one man, serving a long prison sentence in the long-term detention wing of a prison in the East of France, wanted to make minor sewing repairs upon his worn clothes. After having applied to purchase an item necessary for sewing, by means of exceptional prison shop facilities, his request was refused on the grounds that the item was prohibited. He then inquired about the solutions open to him since, as no members of his family came to visit him, he was unable to entrust the repair of his clothes or underclothes to any close 91