very often experienced as such by persons deprived of liberty; certain decisions of assignment to closed regimes may, in addition, resemble undeclared intra-disciplinary measures181. The criteria selected for assignment to closed regimes vary from one institution to another. In one institution of the DISP of Toulouse, the factors taken into account for initial assignment to a special regime are the capacity to be autonomous and put up with collective life, previous disciplinary history, psychological stability, criminal profile and the wishes of the person concerned. In another institution of the DISP of Lyon, the draft rules and regulations mention the fact that “any disciplinary incident and any disturbance of order on the floor can lead to being sent down immediately to a closed floor”, despite the fact that the DAP note of 20 July 2009 specifies that “it goes without saying that differentiation of regimes cannot in any case be used in response to behaviour likely to constitute a disciplinary fault” and also that “the principle of automatic assignment to the controlled (the most restrictive) regime on release from the punishment wing shall be prohibited”. Assignment to a “closed doors” regime following a stay in the punishment wing has nonetheless been noted in several prisons. In one prison of the DISP of Lille, the wing to which persons subject to the “closed” regime are assigned is referred to by prisoners as being the “wing for punished prisoners”. Finally, certain rules and regulations do not mention the conditions of assignment to the different regimes, contrary to the aforementioned note which provides that prisoners shall “have the benefit of information on the overall system of supervision implemented in the prison and the objectives and terms thereof”. In the second place, it should be noted that this lack of precision of the assignment criteria results, on the one hand, from great heterogeneity of practices and, on the other hand, exclusion of persons without real means of remedy. The variety of different applications of the provisions of article 89 of the Prisons Act can equally be seen in the names of the various different regimes, their number and the objectives attributed to them. At the time of inspections, the inspectors noted that institutions which practice differentiation of regimes apply it in a variable manner with regard to the number thereof (between two and four different regimes, and sometimes more) as well as in their names. Thus, the “open doors” regime may be designated as the open regime, traditional regime, ordinary regime, responsibility regime or trust regime or even as the improved regime. The “closed doors” regime, for its part, is in most cases called the closed or controlled regime but may also be referred to as the observation regime or progressive regime as well as, as was noted in one institution in the North of France, the normal regime. The intermediate stage, referred to in most institutions as the semi-open regime, which in most cases involves the opening of cell doors on a half-day basis, is also referred to as the common regime, improved regime or intermediate regime as well as the trust regime. Other institutions compartmentalise prisoners according to their activities or their fragility. This is the case for the “unoccupied” and “protected” regimes etc. This terminology highlights the considerable disparity in the implementation of these regimes and the relative confusion resulting therefrom between remand prisons, where the closing of doors remains the rule, and penal institutions for convicted prisoners, for which article 717-2 nonetheless provides that prisoners in the latter are subject “to night-time solitary confinement only, after having undergone a period of in-cell observation if necessary”. Yet, and this is regrettable, the model rules and regulations for prisons, created by decree no. 2013-368 of 30th April 2013, introduce this standardisation of limitation of movements in prison, stressing that prisoners gain access to visiting room areas, to the health unit, to activity areas, to showers, to the telephone and also to the exercise yard in accordance with fixed times or 181 On this point, see in particular 2.2.1 of section "Discipline and Sanctions in Places of Deprivation of Liberty" of the Annual Report four 2012 of the Contrôleur Général, entitled "Organised Exclusion within “Differentiated Regimes”", p. 125 (published by Dalloz). 118