mental problems with a professional activity to occupy their time. The prisoners selected in the ESAT find it difficult to access the conventional job market because of their disability, and feel very isolated for the most part; this initiative gives them the opportunity to return to work by undertaking simple tasks. Moreover, it meets a genuine therapeutic need within this institution, where reportedly almost a third of its prisoners present a mental disability and whose ability to work is less than a third of that of a nondisabled worker. The Chief Inspector also delegated two inspectors to verify the physical detention conditions within the disciplinary and solitary confinement wings of the Villenauxe -la-Grande detention centre. They found multiple violations of prisoners' rights in these wings, stemming from the physical detention conditions and the treatment of the prisoners. In their report, the inspectors highlighted the insufficient lighting in the cells of both these wings, the shortcomings in terms of the equipment and fitting out of the wings' exercise yards, the lack of any dedicated team within these specific wings, the few activities on offer and the dilapidated state of the washing facilities of cells in the disciplinary wing. The creation of a wing for vulnerable people was commended as a positive initiative to limit the number of so-called "vulnerable" prisoners being placed in the solitary confinement wing. Building on the work in progress on the theme of the treatment of elderly or disabled prisoners, the Chief Inspector also delegated three inspectors to visit an institution that had set up a service project particularly developing a range of activities designed for elderly people or people with mobility problems. Despite the interest in the project, major difficulties were found to persist, such as laborious inter-service dialogue, the specific needs brought about by daily management and release planning for this specific group of prisoners. Lastly, the Chief Inspector conducted on-site investigations regarding two specific situations, under the following conditions: - difficulties reported concerning a disabled person's access to the visiting rooms: on this occasion, the wife of a prisoner detained in the Privas remand prison: requirement to remove shoewear at regular intervals and to pass through the millimetre wave scanner without a walking stick or assistance during visits to the visiting rooms. The conversations held with the management prior to the on-site verification had not brought any convincing arguments to light; the management simply asserted that the situation of the person in question did not pose any particular difficulty. What is more, after contacting the management of the remand prison, the Chief Inspector was informed that the prisoner in question had apparently been summoned by the institution director, who reprimanded him particularly for having got the CGLPL involved. Following these on-site verifications, recommendations were made regarding disabled people's access to the institution (clear service memo on the use of the metal detector, presence of assistance for walking through the scanner, installation of a seat after the scanner if the person needs to be kept waiting). Recommendations also concerned the practice entailing receiving someone to talk about CGLPL case referrals. A reminder was given that anyone deprived of liberty may freely reach out to the Chief Inspector, without fear of punishment, reprimands or any deterioration in his or her detention conditions; the position of authority that an institution director or his or her colleagues exercise over a prisoner is likely to give rise to such fears. - situation of a woman in temporary detention, under terrorist prison conditions, who gave birth in an extremely strained atmosphere, including between the medical and 85