The DPU measure is not therefore to be systematically applied to all persons presenting risks of suicide. In any case, it cannot be systematically used for all prisoners placed in punishment wings.” This memorandum also emphasises that DPUs should be limited in time; by way of information, it mentions an average period of use of between one and forty-eight hours. Analysis of the practice raises questions: indeed, it appears that most of the confiscations of personal clothes were decided upon after the disciplinary committee session held on Fridays, for implementation over the whole of the weekend, and that they concerned persons the majority of whom had expressed their disagreement with sanctions by making suicide threats. The Contrôleur général was also informed of the case of one prisoner, placed in a punishment cell and allocated with this kit throughout the duration of the sanction, that is to say seven days (168 hours). In addition, in the course of this placement, the person concerned had to spend their exercise period clothed solely in the tearable pyjamas, at 6 p.m. in the middle of December, that is to say one hour after sunset, in temperatures varying between 5 and 9°C. From exchange of evidence between the Contrôleur général and the director it emerged that this prisoner was not is a state of suicidal crisis, the DPU having been solely justified by the prevention of a fire risk, due to an incident involving a mattress fire that had occurred two months previously. This measure therefore appears to resemble a disguised means of punishment rather than real prevention of suicide. 2.2.4 Conditional Granting of Allowances depending upon Prisoners’ Behaviour In a more sporadic manner, cases of withdrawal of financial aid as a means of punishing behaviour have been brought to the Contrôleur général’s attention. Such was the case, in particular, of one person who suffered the withdrawal of a cash allowance, which they were nevertheless entitled to claim in view of their absence of resources. From an examination of the reports of the single multidisciplinary committee (CPU) meetings which considered this person’s situation, it appears that their behaviour alone was emphasised in order to justify the possible suspension and subsequent withdrawal of the allowance. Thus, a briefing indicates that: “the CPU notes that you had requested work or general service. Your behaviour in prison is disagreeable. We therefore ask you to pull yourself together quickly. The poverty allowance is granted but make a real effort”. The following month, on the contrary, the CPU granted an allowance to the person on grounds of unfitness for work due their “psychological profile”. One month later, this aid was refused on the following grounds: “you are making no efforts whatsoever in prison, you are letting yourself go and are involved in the various sorts of trafficking within the building” On this occasion, it has been decided not to grant you the poverty allowance”. The following month, the decision was maintained, specifying that: “you are doing nothing whatsoever in detention, you are letting yourself go completely. Refusal of the poverty allowance”. However, the memorandum from the prisons administration dated 3 rd February 2011 concerning the granting of aid to persons lacking resources provides that “exclusion from cash allowances is […] possible when the prisoner has refused to undertake paid activity offered by the CPU” but explicitly specifies that “neither behaviour, nor choices made by prisoners in terms of activities can constitute grounds for exclusion from allowances.” When the unsuitability of these grounds in relation to the memorandum was taken up with the director, the latter replied that “it is very useful that mention is made of behaviour, since this explains the denial of employment. The refusal to grant the allowance is not therefore directly connected to behaviour, but to the idleness of the person concerned in the period in question”. 129