first instance. For the first time a deadline has been established, after which disciplinary proceedings cannot be brought nor sentences enforced: disciplinary actions cannot be instituted more than six months after the discovery of the acts with which prisoners are charged. Nor can they be enforced more than six months after they are pronounced. Moreover, the law establishes the possibility for punished persons to make telephone calls in the course of the enforcement of their punishment, at the rate of one call per seven-day period, and to meet with family and friends once a week during visiting times. Finally, the quantum of applicable sanctions has been reduced: the length of stay for adults in punishment cells cannot be greater than twenty days for first degree disciplinary offences, fourteen days for second degree offences and seven days for third degree offences; this length of time may however be increased to thirty days for acts of physical assault. Moreover, within the framework of an action plan concerning suicide prevention, prisoners placed in punishment wings have been able to use radio sets in punishment cells since the end of the year 2009. 2.1 Disciplinary Regulations that are specific, while leaving room for improvement 2.1.1 Implementation of Disciplinary Proceedings The following procedure has been applied in disciplinary matters since 1996: the member of prison staff who witnessed or was involved in the incident writes an incident report by electronic means in the GIDE (computerised prisoner management in institutions) software application. A graded officer (a prison “major” or a senior prison officer) or an officer is then responsible for deciding whether or not it is appropriate to open an inquiry. In the vast majority of institutions inspected, every incident report was systematically followed-up with an inquiry. Only reported acts which manifestly do not constitute breaches of discipline are ruled out at this stage. Large prisons even have a special officer in charge of conducting these inquiries; in institutions of smaller capacity, the duties of inquirer fall in turn to rank and file or graded officers. However, it should be noted that when there are officers specialised in the tasks of inquiries they do not, in most cases, have the benefit of any specific training and the inspectors have ascertained that the inquiry reports are often poor, incomplete and vague. Information concerning the personality of the prisoners concerned does not always appear in the inquiry documents. Face to face comparison of evidence was rarely organised between all of the persons involved and above all, “the word of the officer concerned could in no case be called into question”. Lawyers have declared that “the inquiry reports were, in most cases, so inadequate, that they could not lead to conviction before a court or any other disciplinary authority”. After having examined the inquiry report, the management or an officer decides whether or not to institute proceedings against the prisoner before the disciplinary committee. In large prisons, these decisions are often taken by an assistant of the director of the institution, to whom detention matters are referred; in those of medium or small capacity, decisions of this kind fall to the director, to their assistant or to the head of detention. The authority instituting the proceedings and the decision-making authority are effectively the same. The inspectors ascertained that the percentage of decisions in favour of transferring cases before the disciplinary authority varies greatly between different institutions (ranging from 50% 112