Regarding the exercise of religious practices, the director reports that the organisation of collective religious practices previously performed in radicalisation prevention units (UPR) has been changed to individual practices within the radicalisation assessment wing, not least owing to pressure and proselytism by certain prisoners over others. The director also informs the CGLPL that when a prisoner arrives in the radicalisation assessment wing, the obligatory new arrival plan is set in motion, which includes attending a medical examination. However, unlike the conventional new arrivals' plan, this medical examination is held in a room in the radicalisation assessment wing. The director confirms that, with the healthcare professionals' agreement, a warder attends this medical checkup on the grounds that no precise assessment of the danger posed by the prisoner to the prison and people has yet been conducted and that "even though this procedure is not exactly compliant with the provisions of Article 45 of the Prison Act, it is justified by the serious risk for the safety, and particularly physical integrity, of the nursing staff". In the context of medical surveillance, the prisoner is transferred to the health block sector escorted by an official, who in principle remains outside the appointment room "unless the prisoner presents a hetero-aggressive risk". The CGLPL condemns this manifest breach of the medical confidentiality of the new arrival in the radicalisation assessment wing and recommends that measures be taken to guarantee confidential communication between the prisoner and physician. 3.3.2 The ban on prisoners serving sentences for terrorist offences at Fleury-Mérogis remand prison working or doing vocational training The CGLPL's attention has also been drawn to the general instructions issued by the management of Fleury-Mérogis remand prison according to which prisoners serving sentences for terrorist offences may not work or do vocational training for reasons associated with the security of the institution and staff. The individual cases brought to the CGLPL's attention reveal the difficulties that the prisoners to whom this out-right ban applies encounter on a daily basis. As such, one prisoner, recognised as being indigent and receiving no visits from his family who lived abroad, had spent several months asking to be selected for a job, in vain, even though he had received permission to work from the judge examining his file. Another prisoner was selected on the main labour list only to be demoted from his job on account of charges being presented against him for a terrorism-related offence. The general instructions issued by the management of the remand prison prevent a whole category of prisoners from being able to work or do vocational training, with no individual consideration or assessment of their family situation and, what is more, at stark odds with the reintegration purpose served by professional activity in detention. Given that they amount, for all of these prisoners, to a violation of their right to access a professional activity, on 12 December 2017 the CGLPL contacted the prison administration director for his comments on this situation in breach of the fundamental rights of the prisoners concerned. 4. On-site verifications Pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 6-1 of the amended Act dated 30 October 2007 establishing the Contrôleur général des lieux de privation de liberté (Chief Inspector of places of deprivation of liberty), "Where the facts or the situation brought to his attention fall within his jurisdiction, the Chief Inspector of places of deprivation of liberty may carry out inspections, where necessary, on-site". The on-site verifications are conducted by the inspectors in charge of the referred cases. Inspectors in charge of missions sometimes also take part in on-site verifications, in particular when specific needs are involved (e.g.: verifications requiring the presence of a physician). 92