Foreword In the foreword of last year's annual report, we raised the concern that the balance between fundamental rights and security was once again in doubt given the gravity of the events that shook 2015, and we recalled the reason for the very existence of the CGLPL: to ensure in all circumstances, even the most serious ones, that the fundamental rights of persons deprived of their liberty are respected. To say that our concerns turned out to be well-founded would be an understatement: through 2016, the CGLPL could not help but observe an erosion of these rights, both in the legislative instruments rushed through in light of the situation, and during the 146 institutional visits carried out over the year. Indeed, against the backdrop of the terror attacks, two acts containing provisions that severely restrict individual freedoms were passed. Although it is understandable that, in exceptional times, it is necessary to enforce certain restrictions of fundamental rights, these must always be "necessary and proportionate", according to the terms of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. And yet I do not believe that this key criterion concerning the proportionality of the restrictions enforced for the sake of security has been heeded. To understand, we need to look at the philosophy behind these two texts and the reasons why they came about. Accordingly, the Act of 3 June 2016 was originally intended to simplify a legal procedure that, it was felt, had become too complex. Through the parliamentary debates, the text was considerably reworked, the end result being a compilation of provisions bearing both on organised crime and terrorism – with seemingly short shrift given to maintaining the already precarious balance between security and individual freedoms. The catalogue of provisions adopted is of concern, and it is important that they be listed here. The conditions and duration of the unconditional imprisonment period have been extended, while those governing release on parole have been restricted; the "unconditional imprisonment period" now applies automatically in some cases; so-called "incompressible" life imprisonment has been introduced for people issued life sentences for acts of terrorism. All of these provisions, which make the prospect of release uncertain, are bringing about a profound change in philosophy within the sentence enforcement system. Detention for four hours in a police precinct, without a lawyer, has been introduced for anyone whose identity has been checked and regarding whom there is "serious reason to believe that his or her behaviour may be linked to activities of a terrorist nature". This criterion is vague to say the least, and therefore dangerous, in a State which claims to be governed by the Rule of Law. The protocol concerning searches in prisons has seen an erosion of fundamental rights since they can now be decided in the wake of general instructions set by the places and periods during which they are carried out, with no regard for the criteria associated with the person being detained. The committal of a person to a dedicated unit reserved for detained persons implicated in cases of terrorism is now officially documented and may be appealed against. This provision of the Act of 3 June 2016 comes after the CGLPL's observations in 2015 and 2016, which criticised the absence of legal status of dedicated units, the creation of which amounted to establishing a detention system with no legal basis. And yet, the announcements of the Minister of Justice on 25 October 2016 – misconstrued as the removal of these dedicated units - in reality sanctions the development of such experiments, without surrounding them with sufficient guarantees in terms of respect of fundamental rights. A few months later, following the 14 July attack in Nice, the Act of 21 July 2016 extended the state of emergency. Whilst the circumstances certainly justified this measure, the vote on this text was taken advantage of to adopt provisions that largely exceeded its initial purpose – not least measures that had been rejected during earlier debates: limiting sentence adjustments and excluding sentence remission 9