3.1 Mandatory sentencing, an inhuman and degrading form of treatment As part of her mission to prevent acts of torture, inhuman and degrading treatment or sentences, the Chief Inspector has been informed of specific individual circumstances to do with the law and the procedural impasse in which these persons find themselves. Mr S., in prison since 1988, is serving a life sentence – the unconditional imprisonment period for which expired back in 2003. As a foreign national, Mr S. is not subject to a banishment from French territory; he has always lived in France. His residence permit expired while he was in prison; and yet, for a number of years the Prison rehabilitation and probation service (SPIP) did not consider it worthwhile applying for a renewal of his residence permit because the end of his unconditional imprisonment period was so far off. It was not until this period expired, in 2003, that the first steps were taken. Mr S. therefore finds himself in an administrative situation whereby all of his requests for sentence adjustment are systematically turned down on the grounds of an incomplete plan because he does not have a valid residence permit for allowing the positive processing of the application as regards accommodation, resources and training. But Mr S. is part of the category of foreigners who cannot be deported from French territory as he has lived in France since he was a young child. Ms F., has been serving a life sentence since 1985 and is currently imprisoned in a prison and hospitalised for psychiatric care without her consent since 1997. She has asked for a presidential pardon, since it is not legally possible for her to request a sentence adjustment, and she has no other procedural avenue open to her. Indeed, she is unable to benefit from a suspended sentence for medical reasons because, pursuant to Article 720-1-1 of the Criminal Procedure Code, "suspension cannot be ordered on said grounds for prisoners hospitalised for psychiatric care without consent" . What is more, since her health requires full hospitalisation, she is unable to go to the national assessment centre (CNE) in person for the purposes of a multidisciplinary assessment, which is compulsory in her case for obtaining release on parole pursuant to Article 730-2 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Chief Inspector wanted to call on the cabinet of the President of the Republic regarding this situation, not to support the request for an individual pardon expressed by Ms F., but to share its observations concerning the consequences on fundamental rights of the poor coordination of our legal apparatus in this regard. In November 2013, the Santé Justice (Health Justice) working group "Adjusted and suspended sentences for medical reasons" submitted a report to the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Social Affairs and Health. As part of the proposals expanding the scope for suspended sentences for medical reasons, the group members spoke out in favour of amending the former Article 720-1-1 of the Criminal Procedure Code so as to include people who are hospitalised without their consent in the suspended sentence for medical reasons scheme. And yet, following the Act of 15 August 2014, this phrase has now been added to Paragraph 1 of said Article: "suspension cannot be ordered pursuant to this Article for prisoners hospitalised without their consent" . This means that people suffering from mental disorders who are hospitalised without their consent cannot benefit from a suspended sentence for medical reasons, when the Act of 15 August 2014 has extended the benefit of the suspended sentence scheme to persons whose mental health shows little sign of ever being compatible with detention. Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides that "No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment". In several judgments (Nivette v. France of 3 July 2001, Léger v. France of 11 April 2006), the European Court of Human Rights has underscored the fact that undergoing mandatory sentencing de jure or de facto amounts to inhuman and degrading treatment in view of Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights. And yet, in light of all the aforementioned facts, the Chief Inspector finds that an adjusted sentence is simply not an option for either Mr S. or Ms F. Neither of them therefore have any hope 78