All of the prisoners encountered reported the difficulty of living in a space of this kind. They explained to the inspectors that in order “to breathe”, they stood on a chair and pressed their face against the top of this tiny opening. The three remaining cells of the solitary confinement wing were equipped and fitted out like the cells of the punishment wing, apart from the wire-meshed security entrances: the bed, table and stool were fixed to the floor, the sink was built into a concrete stand, the toilets lacked any means of separation, the only movable furniture was comprised of corner shelves and the window showed the same characteristics as those of the other cells of this solitary confinement wing (QI). Asked about the reasons for the creation of these three cells, the contacts encountered stated that they had been designed in order to deal with the violent behaviour of certain prisoners: this being a question of protecting the persons themselves as much as enabling actions on the part of staff to be rendered secure. With more specific regard to the punishment wing, the inspectors noted that the cells were still too often smaller than ordinary cells, since the security entrance takes up a part of the space reserved for accommodation, as well as being much darker, as recalled by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT)213. In one long-term detention centre, the punishment cells have a surface area of 6 m², part of which is taken up by a wire-meshed security entrance of 1 m². In one remand prison, the inspectors ascertained that none of the punishment cells were equipped with windows. Daylight entered by means of a wire-meshed light tube. In the long-stay wing of one prison, although the cells are equipped with an opening, which moreover is free of any bars or grilles, the latter is a small square window of 40 cm in length. 1.2 Arrangement of Premises which Respects Dignity, Privacy and the Concern for Confidentiality The inspectors find that priority is given to the surveillance of patients and that the architectural consequences of this priority infringe the latters’ wellbeing, dignity and privacy. The findings are identical for prisons, in which the priority given to the objective of the maintenance of order infringes fundamental rights, without any proof ever being provided of the manner in which this infringement of these rights might be necessary and proportionate. Dignity, privacy and confidentiality are often closely interlinked and lack of respect for one of them very often leads to violation of another. Thus the circumstances under which a third party may be led to learn of a person’s penal situation, for example by seeing them being led wearing leg-cuffs, infringe the confidentiality of their situation while also violating their personal dignity. Similarly, failure to make closed and soundproofed interview rooms available not only infringes the confidentiality of what is said them but also, in certain situations, infringes the privacy of personal relations. 213 Cf. CPT/Inf/E (2002) 1 - Rev. 2011, English , page 35: “All too often, CPT delegations find that one or more of these basic requirements are not met, in particular in respect of prisoners undergoing solitary confinement as a disciplinary sanction. For example, the cells designed for this type of solitary confinement are sometimes located in basement areas, with inadequate access to natural light and ventilation and prone to dampness. And it is not unusual for the cells to be too small, sometimes measuring as little as 3 to 4m² (…)". 134