This overcrowding applies exclusively to the “men’s” wings of remand prisons. In a remand prison having been the subject of a report in 2012, the occupancy level was 158%. In another, it regularly stood at 210% or even more. As the Contrôleur général has already had occasion to point out125, this fact is not only manifested in a few “mattresses on the ground” (obviously highly prejudicial in itself) as many are often too eager to believe: it also has repercussions on the right to respect of private and family life, on access to work and to various different activities, on the manner in which cells are allocated to prisoners and, therefore, on clashes between different groups of inmates, on existing tensions and, finally, on the chances of ensuring appropriate return to life in society after the release of prisoners. It makes prisons into a deplorable mockery of prison life and facilitates the existence of degrading treatment of persons, as the Contrôleur général once again observed in 2012. It also noted the increase of budgetary problems within institutions. It does not pertain to the institution responsible for these lines to assess the reasons for these problems. However, it does fall within its responsibilities to denounce certain choices which endanger the health and salubrity of prisons and their occupants. It is unfair to force prisoners – inequalities in whose means are glaring – to buy products themselves which should be supplied by the administration, such as rubbish bin liners; it is also unfair to reduce the allocations intended for the purchase and distribution of items necessary for hygiene and the upkeep of cells, in such a way that shortages of cleaning products are henceforth frequent; it is also unfair to authorise prisoners to buy sheets (from the prison shop or ‘canteen’), for example, without giving them the means to wash them in a washing machine inside the prison (or, of course, to entrust them to a third party outside). Problems of management have appeared in recent months in these areas: they should be resolved. For reasons of the same kind, various bodies and associations that were once a familiar presence in places of detention are reducing or discontinuing their services. A regular presence on the part of the French national employment agency is becoming rare, in spite of actors on the ground; the AFPA (Association for the professional training of adults) has almost totally disappeared from professional training initiatives. The absence of funds is also leading to the ending of the services rendered by persons who, usually on fixed-term employment contracts, used to contribute to the growth of activities in prisons and, as a consequence, relieved staff of necessary tasks: such is the case for a certain number of “coordinators” whose role consisted of promoting recreational activities. At the same time, recreational and sports associations 126, which drew their resources from the rental of television sets, are experiencing a sharp drop in their budgets, due to the drastic reduction of rental charges127. Despite the fact that these developments had been foreseeable since 2010, reactions were slow. According to the information collected, the prison administration department made a proposal to these associations that they should change into associations “under ordinary law”, that is to say, one might assume, acting as associations that are third parties in relation to the administration. However, it is clear that this change risks resulting in a reduction in the resources devoted to recreational activities in each institution. These changes naturally lessen the credibility of the principle, which has already been given a rough ride by the shortage of work in custody 128, laid down by section 2 of chapter III of title I of the Prisons Act, concerning prisoners’ “obligation to work”. 125 2008 Report of the Chief Inspector of places of deprivation of liberty, p. 28. On this point see article D. 442 of the code of criminal procedure. 127 Until quite recently these charges still stood at thirty-eight euros per prisoner and per month, or even more, they are henceforth eight euros per month in institutions that are entirely publicly run. The new charges will also apply in the other institutions as from 1st January 2013. 128 Cf. Annual Report for 2011 of the Chief Inspector of places of deprivation of liberty, section 4, p. 149 et seq. 126 58