The Contrôleur général’s attention was brought to the situation of one person placed in a punishment cell who, two days later, had received a medical opinion judging their state to be incompatible with maintenance in the punishment wing. The person concerned was then removed, before being taken back to a punishment cell seven days later. The next day, another doctor, in turn, judged their condition to be incompatible with maintenance in a punishment cell. However, the person concerned was once again returned to the punishment wing three days later. When the matter was taken up with the director, the latter justified these successive placements by the fact that, according to him, “this certificate [did] not have permanent value and only suspended a sanction”214. Intervention by medical staff in the disciplinary process is a sensitive subject. It comes up frequently during inspection visits and reflects the special position of doctors in prisons. Indeed, doctors working in the prison environment act in the capacity of prisoners’ personal doctors and have to create the same relation of trust as in “free life”. In its annual report for 2010, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) mentions that it is important to ensure that relations of trust between doctors and their patients are preserved, such relations being essential in order to protect the health and well-being of prisoners. However, at the time of the inspection of one remand prison, the following unacceptable facts were ascertained: prior to and on the same day as appearances before the disciplinary committee, each prisoner had a consultation with the general practitioner, who informed the management of whether or not their state of health was compatible with placement in a punishment cell. This consultation was obviously perceived, by both prisoners and the prison administration, as an examination of fitness for placement in the punishment wing. When this point was taken up in the findings, the director of the institution indicated in their response that, following these remarks from the Contrôleur général, prisoners were no longer taken to the UCSA prior to appearances before the disciplinary committee. 2.1.7 Rules and Regulations in Punishment Wings and Punishment Cells In principle, prisoners have the possibility of speaking with a member of the managerial staff on the same day as their placement in a punishment cell. At this time, a document entitled “punishment wing rules and regulations” or “rights and obligations of adult prisoners placed in the punishment wing” is often handed over to them. The issuing of these documents is sometimes subject to written acknowledgement. Certain institutions also hand over an order form, with a list of prison shops authorised in the punishment wing. The rules and regulations of the punishment wing are displayed – sometimes in very small letters – on the interior side of punishment cell doors. In others, a copy is only handed over on request. It was ascertained that the rules and regulations of punishment wings were sometimes obsolete, dating from before the coming into force of the Prisons Act, and, for this reason, were incomplete: in particular they did not contain any mention of the possibilities of using the telephone, enjoying rights of access to visiting rooms and of having the benefit of a radio set and religious works and objects. It appears that loan of a radio set is not automatic in certain institutions, in which it is necessary to fill in an application form. 214 Cases can also arise where, after removal from a punishment cell due to a medical decision, the same person is returned there following the “discovery” of a new fault (prohibited item found in their usual cell for example) leading to a new appearance before the disciplinary committee and a new punishment, or else a solitary confinement measure (cf. § 2.2.7 below). 120