periods of time after their sentences were pronounced, dooming them to a long interval in which they are left in a state of uncertainty with regard to the fate that awaits them, without being able to make any undertakings or plans whatsoever; on the other hand, are the cases involving prisoners held in detention, without, in most cases, their time of imprisonment having been put to good use for the preparation of the procedures and formalities that become essential with partial release: for example the preparation of an identity card. In both cases, the responsibility falls to courts and services that are overloaded and poorly coordinated. The assessment also raises questions with regard to the dimensions and choice of location of open prisons: those that are set up in large cities, within the jurisdiction of important courts and in the heart of active labour market areas, are bombarded with applications and overcrowded. The opposite applies to those established in areas that are badly-served by public transport and far from jobs and training: these are largely empty. Whereas site choices have been determined by a rationality based on real-estate considerations, the logic of employment and access to services should prevail in all cases. Material conditions in the open prisons are often disastrous, all the more so where there are no staff specifically devoted to their management and supervision. Persons sent to them may even have the feeling of a worsening of their material conditions as compared with ordinary detention. They may also experience worsened conditions in terms of medical care (persons left too much to their own devices) and health education; worsening with regard to activities, which are often lacking when the persons concerned are inside the centre; and lastly, worsening in terms of certain security measures, some of which are completely unnecessary. Finally certain parts of applicable regulations (though open prisons tend to lack policies and procedures, or are unable to cite them) are in need of amendment or greater detail. The conditions under which prisoners are placed in “waiting cells” do not comply with current law. From this it is clear that the development of effective reduced sentencing measures depends not only upon ministerial directives and support from judges for such approaches (which can often be taken for granted), but also upon their practical feasibility and the tools allocated to their implementation. Of course, the Contrôleur général’s recommendations with regard to partial release also apply to other reduced sentencing measures. 1.2 Recommendations concerning Baumettes Prison in Marseille. These recommendations follow on from the inspection conducted by the Contrôleur général in this institution from 8th to 19th October 2012 (including Saturday and Sunday, as well as two night inspections) with a team composed of twenty-two inspectors, capable of investigating all aspects of this vast institution of 1,190 places and 1,769 inmates. Moreover, everything possible was done on-site, in particular by means of constant efforts to ensure openness on the part of the director of the institution, in order to make the necessary inspections easier. As already stated, these recommendations, which were published in the Journal officiel of 6th December, come within the framework of the procedure for urgent cases set out under article 9 of the Act of 30th October 2007. This procedure concerns the reporting of “serious violations of fundamental rights”. Since 2008, it had been used on one single occasion, one year previously 6. The Contrôleur général is aware of its exceptional nature, which it has no wish to trivialise. 6 By pure coincidence the recommendations concerning the prison of Camp-Est (Nouméa) were published in the th Journal officiel (the official gazette of the French Republic) on 6 December 2011, exactly one year previously. 16