prison regimes cannot infringe the rights mentioned under article 22 of Prisons Act no. 2009-1436 of 24th November 2009. Long-term detention centres – and “long-stay detention” wings of prisons - are everywhere organised according to a differentiated prison regime with different rules for different accommodation areas, which in most cases are constituted by the various floors of the same building. Long-stay prisons and remand prisons may also be subject to this type of internal organisation, on an experimental basis, at the initiative of the director of the institution 221. In most cases, differentiated regimes are applied with three different arrangements: First arrangement: the “trust” or ‘improved” regime, with longer time slots for the opening of cells, allowing persons to have the benefit of freer access to the telephone, the exercise yard and the activity room of the wing where, if the need arises, meals may be eaten in common. Second arrangement: the “common” or “ordinary” regime, with shorter time slots in which the doors of cells are open. Third arrangement: the “controlled”, “strict” or “closed” regime, often located on the ground floor of the building, is the only one in which prisoners are never given the key to the “comfort lock” of their cells and therefore never control the opening thereof. The “closed” regime is the regime traditionally applied in remand prisons and long-stay prisons. The assignment of prisoners to particular regimes and changes of allocation are sometimes decided upon by the managerial staff of the wing and subsequently validated by the single multidisciplinary committee (CPU). The situation of persons placed under the closed regime has to be reviewed at regular intervals. Nevertheless, it was noted that prisoners could sometimes be kept under this regime throughout the entire duration of their stay inside an institution. The reasons for placing prisoners under particular regimes are not always set out in the rules and regulations. When they are, it is sometimes in general and unspecific terms: “general day-to-day behaviour of the prisoner”; “protection of vulnerable persons”, “involvement in projects of preparation for release”, “attitude incompatible with an open door regime” etc. Certain cases referred to the Contrôleur général show that these assessment criteria, which are extremely broad, give rise to assignment to closed regimes on grounds such as the “impatient character of one, the state of agitation of the other” etc. Moreover, the aforementioned circular form the prisons administration department of 20th July 2009 specifies that “it goes without saying that the differentiation of regimes cannot in any case be used in response to behaviour liable to constitute a disciplinary fault”. The vagueness surrounding the grounds and procedures for assignment to particular regimes reinforces the suspicion of being a victim of a disguised sanction on the part of prisoners placed in closed regimes. This impression may prove to be justified in certain cases. Numerous testimonies from prisoners report almost systematic placement in controlled regimes after disciplinary sanctions, as one prisoner thus recounts: “on 15 th November 2011, I had a fight with a prisoner (I was defending myself), I went to the courtroom with the other prisoner, he was given 15 days in the punishment wing (QD), I was given 10 days’ confinement 221 Prisons administration department circular of 20th July 2009 concerning the methods of implementation of differentiated regimes within prisons. 126