proposal to this effect made by the medical treatment committee and a decision taken by the prefect of the department in which the UMD is situated. However, after the decision has been taken, it is very common for patients to be unable to leave immediately, because no solution can be implemented for other accommodation. Contrary to undertakings made, the institutions of origin are reluctant for patients who may have caused disturbances in the ward to return. Or, if they are to be catered for within a new institution (after a move to a different place of residence for example), the latter can be difficult to determine. Generally speaking, the “UMD” stamp gives rise to apprehensions, despite the treatment committee’s three psychiatrists having certified that the patient’s condition no longer justifies their being maintained in the unit. The opinion cites the situation of one patient who thus remained for two and a half years in one UMD after the prefectural decision authorising their return to another institution. Such situations maintain patients within a therapeutic framework, and above all under a set of constraints, which they no longer require. In this regard, the restrictions placed upon their fundamental right to liberty4 exceed those called for by their condition. This excess is particularly worrying since it indicates an intention on the part of institutions to protect themselves against difficulties which no longer exist (according to the committee doctors), at the expense of improved well-being for the person. The opinion points out that these difficulties need to be removed by means of issuing orders and allocating the task of taking the necessary measures in each case to regional health agencies, in order to ensure discharge of patients in accordance with medical instructions. 1.2.2 Possession of Personal Documents and Access to Documents that can be made available for Discovery and Inspection by Prisoners5 “Documents” in the broad sense are a source of difficulties in prison. In the first place certain documents constitute a part of each individual’s personal life. Moreover, respect for privacy comes within the field of fundamental rights. The keeping of such documents in a cell is something of a feat. Everything is known to others in prison, and even if the cell is considered to be a “private” space, any lawfully ordered search enables prison officers to get their hands upon any items kept there. Correspondence with lawyers, medical prescriptions, nothing is done to protect professional secrecy, always ignored on these occasions, not to mention letters from spouses (already inspected) and family photos (which do not always come out of searches unscathed, above all if there is an intention to “bully” the occupant). Fundamental rights should allow the performance of security measures, but on the condition that the latter do not thwart respect for privacy. Any infringement of the latter should be necessary and proportionate. For this reason, in order to ensure respect for these principles, it is proposed that lockers for such papers should be placed in each cell, and that the content thereof should only be verified by officers with authorisation for this purpose and in compliance with the laws on professional secrecy. If these conditions are met, it should be possible for documents concerning prisoners’ criminal cases (in particular those containing the grounds for imprisonment) to be placed therein, 4 5 Article 5 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Journal Officiel of 13th June 2013, text 0159. 16