Contrôle Général’s independence. It will include researchers, as well as important outside persons with acknowledged experience in the fields covered. We also need to communicate. We need to go to further lengths in order to raise awareness within French society of the issues which are our concern. From this point of view, we cannot content ourselves with our Annual Report, and need to explore new means of placing our questions closer to the heart of public debate. I would like to finish this foreword with a consideration that attracted my attention from the first days of taking up my appointment. In examining the Annual Report for the year 2013, I took particular note, in chapter 3 thereof, of the list of 20 recommendations made during Jean-Marie Delarue’s term of office, whose implementation would not have any economic impact. It appears necessary to set them out once again here since, one or several years later, no start has been made in putting any of them in place. That the telephones currently installed in penal institutions should enable conversations that are not overheard by all. That prisoners’ letters should only be opened and checked by the post orderly. That cellular telephones should be authorised in all open prisons. That the conditions of use of cellular telephones in prison should be rapidly specified by means of a study leading to controlled authorisation thereof. That all prisoners who so request (directly or through their counsel) should have the right to view the video surveillance recordings of the circumstances for which they are appearing before the disciplinary committee. That in this scenario, these recordings should be retained. That paragraph V and the final indented line of paragraph VI of article 10 of the prison model rules and regulations should be abrogated and their content, concerning freedom of expression and respect for prisoners’ property, should be much more specifically defined, made more flexible and included in the regulatory part (decrees of the French Council of State) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That (controlled) access to Internet should be made available in places of deprivation of liberty in which the length of detention is greater than four days (prisons, hospitals, detention centres, waiting areas and, on specific terms, young offenders’ institutions). This access should include messaging (also subject to control if necessary). That use of means of physical restraint in case of removal from prison in order to go to hospital should be drastically reduced; to this end, escorts should only be held responsible in case of escape if the means used were manifestly inappropriate to the prisoner’s personality. That the traceability of placements in seclusion in hospital psychiatric treatment should be ensured by means of an ad hoc register. That persons in police custody always be informed of the existence of a shower cubicle, if one or several of the latter have been designed, in the police station at the start of their police custody and that they should have access thereto upon request, during periods of rest. That women retain their brassières in police custody, except in case of special circumstance noted in the police report; glasses should be retained under the same conditions. 16