Chapter 1 Places of deprivation of liberty in 2016 In 2016, the CGLPL conducted 146 inspections, with an average duration of slightly more than three days. Taking into account the number of inspectors, this represents 456 days spent in places of deprivation of liberty, in direct contact with people deprived of their liberty and those who are responsible for them. In penal institutions, juvenile detention centres and detention centres for illegal immigrants, almost all of these inspections were second inspections, and even third inspections in some cases. They were therefore an opportunity to assess how practices had progressed as well as what action had been taken following the CGLPL's previous recommendations. Over and above these visits, through the year the CGLPL was obliged to react to events that affected the day-to-day running of some places of deprivation of liberty: a reform of the applicable legislation on solitary confinement and restraint in mental health institutions, a change in the search policy in penal institutions or sweeping movements of undocumented foreigners in connection with the migrant crisis gripping Europe. In light of these visits, the current circumstances and the CGLPL's in-depth knowledge acquired over previous years, it would like to highlight the major themes that currently characterise each category of institution as regards the respect of the fundamental rights of persons deprived of liberty who are held there. 1. The situation in penal institutions Through 2016, the CGLPL teams visited twenty-six penal institutions of all categories (one longstay prison, five detention centres, ten remand prisons, seven prisons, two open prisons and one penal institution for minors). Overall, these visits confirmed the findings of previous years: widespread overcrowding across remand prisons, understaffing, the state of disrepair concerning a large number of buildings, a lack of activity and difficulties accessing care stemming from medical demographics, excessive security restrictions associated with delivery of care and failure to honour physician -patient confidentiality. 1.1 It will not be possible to resolve the prison overcrowding crisis solely by creating new places. There is no doubt that this problem – and its most visible consequence: failure to comply with the obligation for individual cells for prisoners – is the most pressing facing the prison administration. According to the Government, 2, as at 1 August 2016, only 26,829 out of 68,819 prisoners had been assigned individual cells. This rate therefore stands at 39%, but in remand prisons (the institutional category with the fewest individual cells available) it is only 19%. On the same date 3, the overall prison occupancy rate had reached 118%, while the rate in remand prisons was a staggering 14 0%. 2 En finir avec la surpopulation carcérale, Jean-Jacques Urvoas, Keeper of the Seals, Minister of Justice, 20 September 2016. Monthly Statistics of the Population of Persons Serving Sentences or on Remand and Prisoners in France, situation as at 1 August 2016, Minister of Justice. 3 15