because they understood that I was defending myself, and today they want to keep me in a closed cell despite the fact that I behaved well throughout my confinement in a cell”. In one institution inspected, prisoners subject to incident reports are assigned to the closed regime until their appearance before the disciplinary committee, which may take place several weeks later, or sometimes after an even longer period. In another prison, they may also be placed under the closed regime following incidents, when it has been decided not to follow the latter up with disciplinary proceedings for the time being. In the following case, ascertained at the time of another inspection, one person had been placed under the closed regime since their early removal from the punishment wing on the basis of a medical certificate. Moreover, they had been told that they would remain there throughout the duration of deferment of the sanction. Nevertheless, by way of a guarantee to ensure that the differentiation of regimes is used outside of a disciplinary framework, the circular explicitly specifies that “automatic assignment to the (most restrictive) controlled regime on removal from punishment wings should be prohibited” and that “after enforcement of punishment cell sanctions, prisoners should be reassigned to their original wings”. The feeling that differentiated regimes may serve as disciplinary tools is sometimes further reinforced by the fact that certain institutions use them for the purposes of collective sanctions. This one person reported to the Contrôleur général that the whole of the sector within which they were accommodated had suddenly changed to a “closed doors” regime following a fight between two prisoners, passageway “squabbles” between two others, a theft of tobacco from one cell to another and trafficking of medicines and cannabis. In thus misusing the statutory application of differentiated regimes for disciplinary proposes, this practice also violates the very spirit of differentiated regimes, which implies the principle of tailoring sentences to the needs of individual offenders. Furthermore, to a still greater extent than simple restrictions upon coming and going, assignment to the controlled regime involves restrictions in terms of access to activities and work, in spite of the provision of the circular of 20 th July 2009 which specifies that “this system does not lead to any restrictions with regard to the provisions of ordinary law and whatever the regime applied”. Situations of this nature have been referred to the Contrôleur général on numerous occasions, as in the following case: “I was suspended on 21 st March but, in reality, I was dismissed from my employment out of hand on Friday 23 rd, from the moment that I was obliged to change from one building to another, which is, moreover, in the closed sector, subsequently confirmed by the committee on 26th March. I am now subjected to a double punishment!” This situation is applied with even greater harshness in penal institutions for minors, in which punishment wings are infrequently or even never used, but changes from one regime to another are commonplace. “In the minor’s own interest”. However, none of the guarantees of disciplinary procedure apply: there is a total absence of both defence and means of remedy. 2.2.2 Changes of Cell and Searches in Cells The criteria should also be examined that justify the placement of prisoners in “special cells”, in which a hybrid regime of “exclusion” reigns, which is somewhere between confinement and solitary confinement, for a limited 127