period, but without application of the procedures provided for by the regulations. At the time of one inspection in a remand prison, the staff heard by the inspectors did not hesitate to justify these assignment measures, taken outside of any written procedure, in the following manner: “they are unbearable in collective life and, lacking any resources, they tend to extort money from their fellow prisoners”. One of them had been placed alone in a cell under this special regime for two months. In another remand prison, it was also noted that prisoners were frequently placed in former punishment cells, rearranged as traditional cells, in order to avoid detention in punishment cells, considered to be anxiety-inducing and liable to lead to suicidal acts. The punitive character of assignment to this type of cell is therefore concealed offhand, insofar as it constitutes an alternative to placement in a punishment cell. Yet it was specified that assignment to these special cells could also be justified by demands for separation between prisoners issued by judges, or on medical grounds at the request of the UCSA. It is therefore appropriate to be particularly vigilant with regard to the assignment of prisoners to this type of cell. Indeed, it may at first sight appear to be a “benignant” alternative to placement in punishment cells. In reality, the lack of formal character involved in this measure may make it harmful to persons in custody in terms of length of placement, access to remedy etc. Finally, the Contrôleur général is regularly informed of successive assignments of individual prisoners to different cells over short periods of time. This practice, which may be explained by various different reasons connected to the management of the prison, is nonetheless sometimes a disguised sanction. A similar phenomenon is encountered when searches of cells are carried out in a very frequent manner and may then be felt to be a form of sanction. 2.2.3 Confiscation of Clothes on the grounds of Prevention of Suicide and excessive use of Emergency Allocation of Protective Clothing and Blankets (DPU) Article D. 273 of the code of criminal procedure is invoked in certain institutions as the basis for decisions to confiscate clothes, as a security measure, in case of identified risk of suicide. The inspectors ascertained that certain institutions frequently resorted to this practice with regard to persons placed in punishment cells. In these cases the decision is then taken by the management, which refers the matter to the medical service. In one prison inspected, an examination of the documents completed after each use of this measure shows that, over a sixmonth period, personal clothing was taken away and emergency protective clothing (DPU) allocated on twenty-nine occasions – for average periods of between twenty-four and forty-eight hours. Subsequently, in the course of the five following months no such measures were taken. During the latter period, the procedure was suspended because the institution was unable to procure new, less resistant clothes, the prison administration having ascertained that four suicides had occurred by means of the clothes initially used. In the course of these five months, the institution did not record a higher number of attempted suicides in the punishment wing. However, this undressing and its automatic consequences, the handing over to the person of so-called “emergency protection allocation” clothes (DPU, composed in particular of pyjamas made of tearable paper, which are extremely uncomfortable to wear), should be subject to the provisions of the memorandum of 10th February 2011, which provides that “use of this kit is reserved to prisoners in an acute state of suicidal crisis, or presenting the imminent risk of a suicidal act”. 128