special measures ahead of the presidential and legislative elections so as to inform patients of the steps they need to take and organise the means for them to exercise their right to vote in practice. In response, the hospital management referred to the possibility involuntary patients have of going to the polling station alone or, where necessary, accompanied upon medical permission for short-term leave. It clarified that the possibility to vote by proxy was organised for patients who were unable to make the journey to a polling station themselves. The CGLPL considers that the procedure set up to enable patients to exercise their right to vote and the distribution of memos for the attention of staff on the voting by proxy procedure are good practices. 1.2 Restricted rights to access computers in prison The Chief Inspector has received reports of the difficulties encountered by a prisoner in acquiring computer equipment in a long-term detention centre. His request had been denied on the grounds that he was not taking vocational training in connection with computing or participating in any schooling. The Chief Inspector contacted the institution director for comments on this situation. The latter confirmed the refusal issued by the single multidisciplinary commission on these grounds. In response, the CGLPL gave a reminder of the terms of the circular of 13 October 2009 on access to computers for offenders, according to which it is not possible to draw a strict line between the educational use of computers and their recreational use - which is commonplace in society. This circular also provides that only cases of serious and clear threats to the security of the institution and people can justify prohibiting the purchase or use of computer equipment. In accordance with the terms of its opinion dated 20 June 2011 on access to computers for prisoners, the CGLPL pointed out that the right to access computers cannot be subject to a specific justification - i.e. the establishment of a reintegration or training plan. The Chief Inspector has asked the institution's director to reassess the request of the prisoner and to keep her apprised of the action taken. In his response, the institution's director said that he would duly note the recommendations made by the CGLPL and henceforth examine requests for purchases of computers along these lines. 1.3 Access to eye appointments in a long-term detention centre During a team of inspectors' visit to this long-term detention centre, it was observed that an ophthalmologist was available for appointments with prisoners on one half-day every month. The discontinuation of such sessions in detention and regular cancellations of external movements for medical reasons, which thus became necessary, were reported to the CGLPL on a number of occasions, and the CGLPL thus contacted the senior physician of the health block about the matter. He confirmed that the ophthalmologist no longer provided this service since retiring and that eye appointments now relied upon external movements to hospitals on medical grounds. There was an average wait of eight months for an eye appointment. The CGLPL has spoken out on several occasions about the need to increase the presence of consultants within health blocks, or to develop telemedicine, particularly in the opinion dated 16 June 2015 on the health provision for prisoners in health facilities. The CGLPL has gathered the comments of the director of the relevant hospital on the difficulties highlighted and the long-term solutions being envisaged (recruitment of a new ophthalmologist, signature of an agreement with a private-practising ophthalmologist, development of telemedicine, etc.) so as to genuinely enable the prisoners in this institution to access ophthalmological care. 78