behaviour is felt to be personal revenge which only worsens the feeling of arbitrariness and injustice that certain prisoners may harbour. Letters sent to the Contrôleur général denounced unacceptable behaviours on the part of certain members of prison staff: moral harassment (racist remarks, intimidation etc.), unusually frequent changes of cell, brutal searches of cells etc. The prisoners concerned explain in their letters that, once again, these are reprisals arising from confrontational relations with prison staff or from the grounds for their imprisonment (homicide of a police officer, for example). Consequently one prisoner reports that: “I have now been […] in the solitary confinement wing (QI) for one month and one week […] the screws are making life hell for me […]: changes of cell every week, every day they change my fridge, television and mattress. My linen is scanned every day and my cell continuously left in a mess.” From the letters received by the Contrôleur général it emerges that some persons, victims of threats on the part of a warder, apparently had their electricity cut off on several occasions, the supply only being put back on in the best of cases thanks to the intervention of another warder. These types of practices, far from being isolated, appear to constitute an effective means of pressure. Furthermore, with the exception of scenarios in which a prison officer might denounce a colleague, it is impossible to prove these acts, creating on the one hand a feeling of impunity and on the other a strong sense of injustice. The Contrôleur général has moreover been informed that one of these episodes apparently rapidly degenerated into a physical assault upon the prisoner by the prison officer, the latter attempting to “cover” himself by drawing up an incident report. By return of mail from the DISP, it was possible to determine that the prisoner had indeed received blows, something which was moreover confirmed by the declarations of a colleague of the prison officer responsible for the assault. Other acts of a degrading nature were denounced. Indeed, prisoners have brought strip searches and vigorous searches of cells to the Contrôleur général’s attention, both of which were carried out following protests presented to the head of detention. One of the prisoners specified having been informed that they had “annoyed the boss” and that one therefore “had it in for them”. The fact was brought to the attention of the director of the institution that disciplinary responses of this kind, decided upon by warders without incidents being recorded, were apparently frequent. By return of post, it was pointed out that these se arches were not identifiable since, at the time of commission of the acts in question, they were not automatically traced, making any verification impossible with regard to the reasons for and conditions of the searches and therefore leaving them entirely at the warders’ discretion. A very large number of other letters express great outrage with regard to behaviours considered discretionary. Thus some did not understand why certain persons can exchange items with their fellow prisoners accommodated in another cell while they themselves cannot; others wonder why they are “forgotten” in waiting rooms; yet others note with a suspicious eye the fact that certain persons are authorised to have particular items (for example a certain type of jacket) whereas the same request on their part had been refused; finally, others wonder what margin for manoeuvre is left to warders with regard to access to showers etc. 2.4 The impact of Prison Disciplinary Sanctions upon Court Decisions 2.4.1 Plurality of Prison and Court Sanctions 137