Nevertheless, it appears that the withdrawal of the cash allowance, based on an assessment of the behaviour of the person concerned, is indeed constitutive of a disguised sanction. 2.2.5 Transfers as Order and Security Measures The circular issued by the director of the prisons administration department on 21st February 2012 concerning the placing of prisoners authorises “transfers as order and security measures” insofar as it states that “requests for changes of assignment [issued by the director of the institution] may be justified by the behaviour of convicted-prisoners in custody”. Article D. 301 paragraph 2 of the code of criminal procedure adds that: “as far as unconvicted prisoners are concerned, they may only be transferred with the agreement of the judge to whom judicial investigation of the case is referred. Nevertheless, the circular specifies that such decisions should reconcile the imperatives of security for institutions and persons with respect for fundamental liberties and rights. The director of the institution therefore has to take into account a number of factors affecting the person concerned including, in particular, their family situation, any training commenced, any planned reduced sentencing measures, their health and their rights to defence before asking for the transfer. However, an examination of the letters received by the Contrôleur général shows that administrative transfers are very often decided upon outside of the abovementioned criteria. Many of them, which follow incidents in prison, resemble transfers for disciplinary purposes. “Disciplinary transfer” decisions of this kind may be taken as principal measures (due to grievances but outside of any disciplinary procedure), in a temporary manner (that is to say alongside a disciplinary procedure and pending a disciplinary committee hearing) or, more commonly, in addition to disciplinary measures already enforced. The principal figures of this misapplication of procedure are persons showing an anti-authority profile or psychiatric frailties regularly provoking incidents who, for this reason, go on a “Tour de France” of prisons, which creates the greatest degree of difficulty with regard to the maintenance of their family relations. By way of example, the Contrôleur général noted the case of one person whose transfer to an institution near to their family home had been planned and agreed upon. Finally, however, following a disciplinary procedure and sanction, they were assigned to an institution far from their family home. When questioned as to the reasons for this transfer, the DISP declared that “the central administration decided to send [the person concerned] to another institution. Thus, on 12th December 2011, the reassignment of [this person] that had been confirmed on 13 th September 2011, was cancelled and replaced with reassignment to another institution considered to provide more suitable supervision. […] The latter may subsequently seek a new change of assignment, in order to be imprisoned within an institution close to the place of residence of the members of their family, on the condition of showing appropriate and more stable behaviour”. The practice on the part of the prisons administration of using transfer measures as a disciplinary tool to punish behaviours which it considers inappropriate is here clearly shown. However, the lack of precision of the notion of “behaviour” may leave room for arbitrariness. The use of these methods was also ascertained within the course of inspections. During the inspection of one remand prison in the South of France, which accommodated 129 prisoners at the time of the inspection, the staff of the institution continually repeated to the insp ectors 130