To this end, in needs to prevent and suppress acts of violence suffered by prisoners at the hands of other captives or of representatives of the administration. It also needs to anticipate acts of self-harm. During the first six months of 2013, the Contrôle Général des Lieux de Privation de Liberté’s centre for referred cases received 2,112 letters sent from penal institutions. Relations between captives are brought up in 114 letters (5.39%) only ranking in tenth place. The second reason for writing concerned relations between prisoners and staff with 206 letters, that is to say 9.75% of the cases referred. Among the latter, 90 (43.69%) mention disputes between prisoners and staff, 59 (28.64%) acts of violence and 57 (27.67%) acts of disrespect on the part of staff105. All of these applications are subject to requests for explanations and inquiries. Two cases were brought to the attention of the courts in application of article 40 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In one of the two cases, a person imprisoned in a specially-equipped hospitalisation unit (UHSA) complained of having been raped by a fellow prisoner at the time of their stay in a remand prison106. Moreover, cases of violence between prisoners were brought up at the time of inspections and led to disciplinary measures, as was also the case acts of violence committed by staff against prisoners. It needs to be emphasised that it is particularly difficult for acts of violence to be ascertained by inspectors in the course of inspections. 2.1 Public Order in Prison is not always appropriately organised The inspectors have ascertained a considerable increase in the number of cameras installed, with the possibility of recording, in collective areas and in exercise yards in particular107. However, the images are sometimes of very poor quality and blind spots remain in particular at the level of exercise yards. The recordings, when they exist, do not appear to be used in an optimal manner within the framework of disciplinary investigations or at the time of the holding of disciplinary committee hearings. The absence of real measuring tools makes it difficult to assess the real impact of the installation of these cameras as far as change in levels of violence is concerned. However, it is certain that violence remains widespread both between prisoners and against staff. Prison overcrowding obviously contributes to worsening the situation, as does the prison regime in certain cases. Supervision of the movements of the prison population around institutions, and more specifically within wings and floors, cannot be left to the presence of cameras alone. In this respect, the absence of warders, which is very often noted in places of detention, leaves a free hand for the strongest to exercise acts of violence against the weakest. Similarly, with Any prisoner who is the victim of an act of violence committed by one or several fellow prisoners is subject to special surveillance and prison regime. They have the benefit of placement in an individual cell. When a prisoner has caused their own death, the prisons administration immediately informs their family and close relations of the circumstances in which the death occurred and facilitates, at their request, the procedures that they may be led to undertake”. Article 58 of the Prisons Act specifies that: “Surveillance cameras may be installed in collective areas presenting a risk of assault causing bodily harm to persons within prisons. This option constitutes an obligation for all penal institutions opened after this Act has come into force”. 105 For an exhaustive analysis of these cases referred, see section 10, § 2 below. 106 In the second case a prisoner placed in a remand prison for acts of marital violence and abduction of children had informed the inspectors of sexual abuse of their son committed by the child’s maternal grandfather. 107 In application of the aforementioned Article 58 of the Prisons Act. 88