of restrictions concerning the latter, contrary to current regulations which do not provide for any such restrictions with regard to prison visitors, lawyers, consular representatives, representatives of the Défenseur des droits ombudsman and members of the Contrôleur général des lieux de privation de liberté. While placement in a punishment cell often leads to isolation which is sometimes difficult to bear, access to the possibility of reading often proves to be problematic. Current laws are not at issue: deprivation of reading cannot constitute a disciplinary measure; persons placed in punishment cells are allowed to have the various books that they keep in their cells, or in the property office, handed over to them and to continue to receive publications to which they subscribe. However, in reality, it was ascertained that if prisoners have not packed their books before being placed in the punishment wing, it is difficult for them to gain access to them subsequently. Above all, difficulties arise with regard to the choice of books, newspaper and periodicals that the administration should offer them. In general, punishment wings contain a few books which appear to be forgotten, unless the meals service provides an opportunity of gaining access to them, as is the case in one institution inspected, where the lower shelf of the meal trolley was filled with books and magazines. In principle, the possibility of receiving a radio set in a punishment cell has now existed for a few years. Certain institutions spontaneously place them at the disposal of persons placed in the wing; in others, they have to be requested. In most prisons, the number of sets is insufficient because they have apparently been destroyed (and not replaced) or because of the lack of a stock of batteries, despite the fact of a deliberate choice having been made to purchase this sort of equipment. 2.1.9 Means of Remedy215 Remedy against disciplinary measures is no more than potential to a large extent. In most cases, decisions are delivered immediately by the chair of the disciplinary committee and are given in writing. The inspectors were in a position to ascertain that the existence of the procedure for compulsory prior appeal to a higher administrative authority (RAPO 216) before the interregional director of prison services is almost systematically mentioned. This provides that any prisoner who wishes to dispute disciplinary decisions against them shall refer the case to the director of the interregional department of prison services within a deadline of fifteen days as from the day of notification of the decision, before any possible recourse to the courts. It emerged that most of the institutions inspected in 2012 were not in the position of being able to provide any information with regard the number of appeals to higher administrative authorities lodged against decisions made by their disciplinary committees. Admittedly, this results from the fact that persons refer cases to the interregional director by letter, i n a sealed envelope. Nevertheless, institutions should be able to procure this information insofar as the interregional department then sends requests to them to pass on the documents pertaining to disputed disciplinary cases. Similarly, no special note is made of any proceedings pending before administrative courts, nor is there any list of court decisions delivered with regard to disciplinary disputes. 215 216 For an overall study of prisoners’ rights to defence cf. section 3 of this report. Article R.57-7-32 of the Code of criminal procedure. 124