that “numerous prisoners are transferred to this remand prison from other institutions by means of order and security measures”. The inspectors indeed ascertained that this assertion was correct. This remand prison has the reputation of being an institution “where discipline is firmly maintained. Therefore, and quite naturally, prisoners whose behaviour is continually bad are sent there”. Disciplinary assignments of this kind account for one fifth of the inmate population of this institution. 2.2.6 The Solitary Confinement Regime Article 726-1 of the code of criminal procedure and the circular issued by the prisons administration department on 14 th April 2011 concerning the placement of prisoners in solitary confinement state that such placements may only be made “on the grounds of protection of the person concerned or maintenance of the security of persons and of the institution. Such decisions shall be based upon serious grounds and objective and corroborating elements justifying fear of serious incidents on the part of the prisoner or directed against them”. Decisions to place prisoners in solitary confinement cannot therefore be taken for reasons related to disciplinary considerations, that is to say as a replacement for disciplinary sanctions or as an extension thereof. Nevertheless, placement in solitary confinement following disciplinary measures is a common practice within certain penal institutions. Indeed, under the guise of protection of persons, a double sanction is imposed. Such is the case, in particular, when placement in solitary confinement is justified on grounds similar to those for which the prisoner has already been placed in a punishment cell. In particular, the Contrôleur général was informed of the situation of one person who, after being placed in a punishment wing, was granted a deferment of this measure by medical decision. However, on the same day, a search performed upon the person’s cell led to their placement in the solitary confinement wing. It therefore emerges that the repeated application of these measures in very close succession led to the substitution of a solitary confinement measure for placement in the punishment wing, which had become impossible. This constitutes misuse of the procedure for placement in solitary confinement wings. 2.2.7 Misuse of Article 24 of the Act of 12th April 2000222 “With the exception of cases where decisions are taken on request, individual decisions, which shall be justified in application of articles 1 and 2 of Act no. 79-587 of 11th July 1979 concerning the justification of administrative acts and the improvement of relations between the administration and the public, shall only take place after the person concerned has been put in a position to present written remarks and, if necessary, at their request, oral remarks. This person may enlist the assistance of an adviser or be represented by an agent of their choice.” The circular 9th May 2003 issued by the prisons administration department in application of the above article 24 specifies that disciplinary proceedings fall within the field of application of article 24, while conforming to special procedures. Consequently, in this section we will speak of two distinct procedures that, for the sake of clarity, we will refer to as “disciplinary proceedings” 222 th Act no. 2000-321 of 12 April 2000 concerning the rights of citizens in their relations with public administrations. 131