The CGLPL recommends that communal living areas, fitted out in such a way as to promote autonomy, should be systematically provided for in all prisons and in every wing, and that access to them should be facilitated, while also being made secure, for all prisoners 60. In one QMC visited by the inspectors, the internal rules and regulations showed a prison regime imposing “stricter rules of life, principally consisting of specific supervision by prison staff in the form of constant escorting of prisoners at the time of their movements”. It would be appropriate to raise the question of the compatibility of these principles with the objective set by the Code of Criminal Procedure for long-stay prisons of “maintenance and development of the possibilities of social rehabilitation for convicted prisoners”. Another long-stay prison in the South of France was recently reorganised upon a radically different basis, consisting of “involving prisoners by making them active in detention, rather than passive”, with the goal of offsetting the effects of the “closed doors” regime. Several initiatives were taken in this direction, such as the appointment of “prisoners responsible for leisure activities”, the involvement of certain prisoners in various different committees (meals, prison shops etc.) and the putting in place of personalised support for sports activities, for older persons in particular. Three initiatives appear particularly innovative: the establishment of “facilitator prisoners”, who may be defined as prisoners working for the integration of other imprisoned persons; the creation of common training programmes for staff and prisoners; and the putting in place of “interpersonal relations mediation” between individual members of staff and prisoners, both of whom take part on their own initiative, following incidents that may have given rise to appearances before the disciplinary committee: the prisoner can thus give their point of view about the origin of the incident and their current and future intentions, without the authority and position of staff within the institution being called into question. It would be worthwhile testing and developing individual and collective measures of this kind in other institutions, since they can only contribute to the prevention of violence. 1.1.2.2 The Differentiated Regime in Long-Term Detention Centres Until the 2000s, the majority of long-term detention centres used what was referred to as the “open doors” regime, which was manifested in free movement of the prison population within the various accommodation buildings and direct access to places of activity. Under this system, the floor ward opens the cells when making the roll call, at the beginning of the morning or afternoon, and checks and locks them again before going off duty. In the meantime, the prisoners – who have so-called “convenience” key to their cells –, are free to come and go, locking the door behind them. Due to their architectural layout (cf. supra), several centres still function according to this model today. Long-term detention centres have nevertheless undergone profound changes, as differentiated regimes have been progressively put in place as a result of the will to both gather persons together in the same sector, according to their “profile”, and to channel internal movements of the prison population, in order to prevent persons classed under different categories from meeting each other. This has resulted in freedom of movement being reduced to the boundary of the floor. Prisoners’ movements to common areas (activity rooms, sports fields and exercise yards) have been “sequenced”, as in long-stay prisons, thus regulating their leaving 60 A recommendation of this kind has already been issued in the Annual Report of the Contrôleur Général for 2013 (p. 148 et seq.). 87