particularly by handling everyday incidents (thefts, indiscretion with telephones, etc.) realistically. This plan includes a principle of open rooms with access rights during the day, handing out of keys for cupboards and carefully considered access to telephones and cigarettes. Another key principle is individual observation periods. Many institutions have begun thinking about the freedom to come and go and, more broadly, everyday freedoms sometimes, albeit rarely, including the issue of patients' sexuality. The dedication of nursing staff, their concern for patients' well-being and their caring attitudes are not in doubt - as highlighted during all of the CGLPL's visits. The problem is the lack of guidelines: if patients' rights are not respected it is because overstretched teams are unable to question their practices enough, because they have not had the requisite training – especially regarding the legal aspects – or because they are not aware of the best practices, even though these exist - sometimes in the same institution. It is therefore paramount that the Ministry of Health take the necessary measures to promote the rights and freedoms of psychiatric inpatients and ensure they are respected. 2. Penal institutions in 2017 2.1 The CGLPL's visits lay bare a situation that is still critical In 2017, the CGLPL inspected 21 penal institutions: eight remand prisons, two long-term detention centres, one long-stay prison, seven prisons with sections incorporating different kinds of prison regime, one women's remand prison, one prison for minors and one open prison7. The main findings made in these institutions are no different from the ones made in previous years. With the exception of four new institutions (the Beauvais, Riom, Valence and Vendin-le-Vieil prison complexes), all of the visits were second visits and, in the case of the Porcheville prison for minors and Strasbourg remand prison, third visits. The progress made between the first and second visits, highlighted by the findings, is mixed. The situation in two institutions has visibly improved thanks to extension and renovation work which, in one case, has increased the occupancy capacities and, in the other, improved the accommodation conditions. Another three institutions have made progress too, thanks, it would seem, to the arrival of new management teams. In one case, the progress observed was clearly the result of wanting to act upon the comments made by the CGLPL during its previous visit. On the other hand, the situation in three institutions has deteriorated since the previous visit, in one case due to overcrowding compounded by understaffing, in another owing to the fall in publicprivate partnership provision which made certain services to prisoners impossible - not least prisoner movements for medical reasons - and the third because of an increasingly strained atmosphere caused by serious incidents in the prison, with disciplinary action being taken against several staff members and all projects being put on hold due to persisting uncertainty over the institution's future. Between these extremes, the progress across most institutions has been mixed: renovation work which only marginally improves accommodation conditions without dealing with the structural disrepair of facilities; efforts to implement the CGLPL's recommendations that need to be taken further, the development of 7 The full list of institutions inspected in 2017 is provided in Appendix 2 hereto. 20