in some cases, on the other hand, children in crisis, who cannot be maintained in the unit, are moved to a unit for adult patients, a practice which the Contrôleur général strongly criticised. Generally speaking, it is true that certain children with serious pathologies are, at the present time, sent for longer or shorter periods to adult units where they are very isolated in most cases. These practices should be brought to an end and other courses of action found, possibly in a more distant children’s unit, on the condition that the cartography of child and adolescent psychiatric units as a whole be redesigned. The above questions are almost the opposite of those posed in certain cases of prisoners hospitalised by means of committal for psychiatric treatment at the request of a representative of the State. At least one hospital inspected, that caters for an area in which a prison is located, only accepts prisoners whose address before they were imprisoned (domicile) is in one of the geographical sectors corresponding to the institution’s psychiatric units. For a remand prison, this situation might correspond to that of the majority of prisoners. This in no way applies to prisons for definitively convicted prisoners. Such restrictive rules should be abandoned and, in the case of complete hospitalisation of prisoners, the prison should be deemed to constitute their domicile. On the other hand, this would result in all prisoners being concentrated in a single unit. In this scenario hospitals might decide to divide the prisoners between all of their units. Indeed, in spite of the law and the initiatives for bringing specially equipped hospital units (UHSA) into service, in particular in 2012, it is far from being the case that all prisoners in this situation can be accommodated in such institutions, as article L. 3214-1 (already mentioned) of the public health code provides. Such are the recommendations that the Contrôleur général des lieux de privation de liberté made and presented to the authorities in 2012. 77