night rounds33, on application of the pension scheme specific to prisoners in the general service category34, on difficulties relating to external movements and permissions to take escorted leave35. Other referrals have led to discussions, some of which have brought an end to the violations of rights or enhanced the rights of people deprived of liberty. Accordingly, discussions were held in 2017 on such diverse subjects as the exercising of prisoners' right to vote, the issue of high occupancy rates in penal institutions receiving young offenders in Ile de France (the Parisian region) and the sharp rise in 2016 and 2017 in the number of children detained, or the inclusion of the International prisons watchdog (OIP) in the list of telephone contacts for prisoners. Finally, some referrals still have had no responses forthcoming several months after their dispatch. A few examples of nationwide concerns that the Chief Inspector referred to the authorities in 2016 and 2017 are given below. The Chief Inspector is still awaiting an answer from the authorities for most of these questions. For others, the authorities have already responded and talks will continue through 2018. This section also addresses three issues identified because of their relevance, in that they concern myriad institutions and were the subject of discussions with a number of authorities in 2017 – directors of institutions, prefects, court administrators and ministers: exercise of the rights to appeal in detention centres for illegal immigrants, respect for dignity and professional confidentiality during external movements for medical reasons and the management of prisoners that the prison authorities have identified as being radicalised. 2.1 Referrals for which responses have been forthcoming from the authorities with which cases are taken up 2.1.1 The procedure for exercising the right to vote within penal institutions In February 2017, with the presidential and legislative elections approaching, the Chief Inspector wanted to draw the Minister of Justice's attention to the procedure for exercising the right to vote in penal institutions and to gather her comments on the systems currently provided for by the electoral code - voting by proxy - and the Code of criminal procedure - permission to leave – as well as on the possibility of installing polling stations within penal institutions themselves. A factor of citizenship, the right to vote is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution and, at international level, by Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Articles 39 and 40 of the Charter Of Fundamental Rights Of The European Union. Article 30 of the Prison Act of 24 November 2009 and the Ministry of Justice's circular dated 1 February 2012 outline the procedure for exercising the right to vote in penal institutions: prisoners may vote by proxy or ask the Judge responsible for the enforcement of sentences for permission to leave. And yet the right to vote is seldom exercised in detention, as attested by the figures from the 2012 presidential elections (760 votes by proxy and 352 permissions to leave granted) and the 2014 municipal elections (519 votes by proxy were counted and 54 permissions to leave granted). Some situations which were reported to the Chief Inspector refer to the barriers that prisoners encountered in their efforts to vote by proxy: voting by proxy proved impossible despite the requests in writing they made, on the grounds that they had forgotten to mention the identity of the proxy; absence of 33 See CGLPL Annual Reports for 2015, p. 69 and 2016, p. 94. See CGLPL Annual Report for 2016, p. 96. 35 See CGLPL Annual Report for 2016, p. 101. 34 82