nevertheless of the utmost importance in terms of respecting rights in accommodation cond itions: that of the state of the existing building stock. Over 2016, the CGLPL visited several institutions which were in a visible state of disrepair – including fairly recent buildings: for example, in one remand prison in the Parisian region, which only opened in 1990, the cells were in poor condition and so dirty they were infested with cockroaches; they were due to be renovated but overcrowding (175%) meant this simply was not possible. The same situation was observed in several other institutions where overcrowding bordered on the national average of 140%. The most shocking situation was observed at the Fresnes prison – such that the CGLPL was obliged to issue recommendations with the utmost urgency (see Chapter 2 below). Overcrowded institutions are not the only places where poorly maintained infrastructure is a problem though. On this point, the CGLPL would like to highlight the lack of cleaning and general care observed on more than one occasion in open wings and prisons where the accommodation conditions are worse than in some remand prisons. In such places, prisoners and staff alike often spoke of a sense of abandonment, clearly corroborated by hard evidence in the condition of the infrastructure: communal showers in a disgraceful state, windows that do not close, no equipment for cooking in cells or in a communal area, virtually no sign of any upkeep or cleaning anywhere and so on and so forth. It was not uncommon for the people encountered in these places to explain that because detention in open prisons or wings was supposed to be seen as a sort of "preferential treatment", where prisoners could satisfy their needs outdoors, this consequently released the administration from part of their obligations. This is not the case at all – far from it. Equipment and maintenance conditions in open prisons must therefore be paid the same attention as the other categories of institution should be given. On a final note it should be pointed out that renovating real estate is not enough in itself to improve detention conditions: this must come hand-in-hand with equipment and organisation measures that make it possible to take advantage of the improvements made. For example, the CGLPL observed some instances where cells had been renovated without the accompanying furniture necessary for using them being in place, and even where recently built family living units were not being made use of because the necessary organisation measures in this regard had not been adopted. The Minister of Justice's aforementioned report, En finir avec la population carcérale, clearly identifies the problem of under-investment in prisons where this is concerned, and plainly sets out the financial difficulties that are preventing the prison administration from addressing the upkeep needs in prisons – not least the burden that public-private partnerships places upon them. It is regrettable, for all that, that the necessary conclusions have not been explicitly drawn from this finding. Indeed, this document gives precedence to the creation of new places but, on the subject of detention conditions, the target is limited. After a particularly narrow interpretation of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (pp 45 & 46), the Minister of Justice does not go any further than to lay down principles (praiseworthy though they are) for broadening activities and improving preparation for release, and does not explicitly consider the improvement of accommodation conditions in existing institutions which the CGLPL nevertheless deems a priority. It must be guaranteed that existing institutions will be brought up to standard and have maintenance set up with identified means and a monitoring system. 18