In response, the Prison Administration Director said that he had asked the Legal Action and Prison Law Bureau to analyse the arguments provided locally and to reach a national position on this matter. This analysis makes it clear that because the OIP is committed to advocating in favour of prisoners' fundamental rights, any call made to this association can be justified on the grounds of preparing for the convict's reintegration. The Prison Administration Director says that he has forwarded this analysis to institutions that refused to allow the OIP's number to be included out of principle. 2.2 Referrals still pending an answer from the authorities Other referrals to the Ministers or Prison Administration Department have been made more recently and are still pending an answer from one or all of the authorities which received them. Discussions on these subjects will carry on in 2018. This goes for talks initiated with the Ministries of Health and the Interior on medical care access for migrants detained in detention centres, talks with the Ministries of Justice and the Interior on external movements and judicial transfers and the referral to the Minister of the Interior on placements in detention under the Dublin III Regulation, despite a decision by the Court of Cassation dated 27 September 2017 ruling detention on such grounds unlawful. Mention could also be made of older referrals to the Prison Administration Department on the roll-out of gratings across penal institutions, the consequences on the exercise of detained persons' rights of committal to specially-equipped hospitalisation units (UHSA) and interregional secure hospital units (UHSI) or the difficulties associated with the introduction of a fixed-rate fee for taking the driving theory test. Despite several reminders being sent out, the Prison Administration Department has still not responded to these referrals, which date back to 2016 or the beginning of 2017. With respect to grating, the Chief Inspector stressed the negative consequences of rolling out this system within penal institutions, observed during inspections and in the case referrals. Following a referral from the CGLPL, one head of institution measured the lighting levels, which revealed that installing grating reduced lighting by 43% in a south-facing cell and by 40% in a north-facing cell. Installing grating thus plunges cells into virtual darkness during the daytime, which exacerbates the prisoners' sense of isolation and prevents them from reading and working by natural light. Poor lighting in cells may also lead to sight problems. This system thus violates prisoners' fundamental rights and appears at odds with the provisions of Article D.351 of the Code of criminal procedure, which provides that "In all places where prisoners are required to live or work, the windows shall be large enough to enable the prisoners to read or work by natural light, and shall be so constructed that they can allow the entrance of fresh air. Artificial light shall be provided sufficient for the prisoners to read or work without injury to eyesight." The Chief Inspector indicated to the Prison Administration Department that, in light of these findings, it appeared advisable to suspend the installation of grating in penal institutions and to consider other measures for meeting both the requirements bearing on security and cleanliness of communal areas and the right to sufficient lighting and aeration in cells. She called on the Prison Administration Department for comments on these points. No response has been forthcoming on this request since June 2016. Another outstanding general issue, first raised back in 2016, concerns the consequences of committal to a specially-equipped hospitalisation unit (UHSA), interregional secure hospital unit 85