2. Prison Discipline: Perfectible Law and Questionable Practices Throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, political authority above all strove to begin to codify the unenviable lot of prisoners subjected to various different cruel punishments and, after the Liberation, to alleviate their situation and make it less inhuman. It was not until the time of the Liberation that measures were finally implemented in order to make discipline more human: in 1947 the “discipline room” (marching in step wearing clogs) was abolished, in 1974, the maximum duration of placement in punishment wings was reduced from 90 to 45 days, the decree of 26th January 1983 abolished the obligation for prisoners placed in punishment cells to wear prison uniform (a measure whose application was moreover extended to the prison population as a whole); punished prisoners were henceforth authorised to smoke in punishment cells. The principle of “the lawfulness of offences and punishments” applied to disciplinary matters in the prison environment is of very recent creation. For the first time in 200 years, a major reform of the disciplinary regime in the prison environment was put in place with the Hardouin and Marie ruling delivered by the French Council of State in 1995 201 and the decree of 2nd April 1996202. Breaches of discipline and sanctions in prison were henceforth clearly defined by means of classification according to their seriousness and listed in the code of criminal procedure. Moreover, the practice of systematically confiscating items of bedding from prisoners placed in punishment cells during the day and restrictions concerning correspondence were brought to an end. Judicial remedy is henceforth open. However, it is subject to compulsory prior appeal to a higher administrative authority (RAPO / recours administratif préalable obligatoire), that is to say appeals against decisions by directors of prisons must be referred to regional directors of the prisons administration. “Disciplinary committees” were created in replacement of the “prétoire” [prison disciplinary court for offences committed by prisoners serving sentences]. Chaired by the director of the institution and composed of two assessors: a member of the managerial staff and a warder. Finally and above all, before cases are brought before the disciplinary committee, an inquiry has to be conducted by a graded officer and a rank and file officer, in order to enlighten the director of the institution with regard to the appropriateness of instituting proceedings against the prisoner before the disciplinary body and enabling them to have all of the facts at their disposal, as well as information on the prisoner’s personality, at the time of pronouncing sanctions. Then, in application of the act of 12th April 2000 concerning the rights of citizens in their relations with public administrations, a lawyer was henceforth admitted in order to take care of the defence of prisoners brought before disciplinary committees 203. Whatever their financial resources, prisoners can have the benefit of legal aid if they apply for it. Finally, the act of 24th November 2009, referred to as the prisons act204 and its implementing decrees205 introduced major changes with regard to discipline: since 1 st June 2011, the second assessor within disciplinary committees has been selected from among persons exterior to the prisons administration, empowered by the presiding judge of the regional court of 201 th Arrêt Hardouin et Marie [“The Hardouin and Marie Ruling”], French Council of State, 17 February 1995, Rec. Lebon p. 82 and 85. 202 Decree (Décret) no. 296-87 of 2nd April 1996 concerning the disciplinary regime for prisoners. 203 Cf. access to defence rights in section 3 of this report. 204 Act no. 2009-1436 of 24th November 2009. 205 rd Decrees no. 2010-1634 and no. 2010-1635 of 23 December 2010. 111