In the first place, disciplinary sanctions are in practice often followed by court proceedings, dismissal from employment, transfer and placement under the closed regime, as mentioned above, in a more or less lawful manner. In the second place, and in accordance with law, disciplinary sanctions are brought to the attention of the judge responsible for the execution of sentences (JAP), who then decides whether or not the benefit of remission credits and the granting of additional remission are justified in view of the latter. The existence of incidents and disciplinary sanctions also has an influence on the criteria for assessment of the appropriateness of reduced sentencing. Numerous testimonies received by the Contrôleur général report these repercussions, which simultaneously punish the persons concerned in several different ways. For example, one prisoner on partial release mentioned receiving a death threat from the person sharing their cell. In spite of having informed the warders and management on numerous occasions, nothing had been done in order to assign them to a different cell. Therefore, one evening, feeling still heavier with fear, they returned to the institution after the imposed time, with a telephone and in a state of inebriation. “On 20th May, [I appeared] before the JAP to examine the problem. The result thereof was the revocation [of my partial release] […] On Monday 6th June, I was summoned before the director who gave me a suspended sentence of 42 days in a punishment cell for alcohol, failure to return to detention and possession of a telephone! Between 8th May and 4th June, there was enough time to try this matter. […] In the following month, in July 2011, the JAP refused me the three months of additional remission (RPS) on the same grounds. Before this assault, I had spent 18 months without any problem. I […] appeared […] before the JAP again on 17 th August for the granting of reduced sentencing and she […] punished me […] [again] by barring me from lodging [another request for] reduced sentencing for six months, without even examining my file. Since the month of May, I have been denied work, making me destitute […]. The story continues on 29 th September when the JAP […] took away 45 days of remission credits (CRP) from me for the same events”. In legal terms, the JAP’s assessment is based upon the behaviour of the prisoner in detention and disciplinary sanctions do not automatically involve the withdrawal of remission credits. In practice, the situation is very different, since judges responsible for the execution of sentences rely on disciplinary proceedings to place objective elements at their disposal enabling them to assess the prisoner’s behaviour. 2.4.2 Plurality of functions in reference to article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights Disciplinary committees are chaired by the head of the institution or by a person having been delegated authority by the latter and the same also applies, prior to procedures, to decisions to institute proceedings and open inquiries. For this reason, certain provisions of prison disciplinary procedure do not appear to offer guarantees of a fair trial, as defined by the ECtHR in its case law with regard to the impartiality of disciplinary authorities, which is based, in particular, on separation of the powers of instituting proceedings and judgement224 and on rights of defence 225. Indeed, although the ECtHR considers that disciplinary sanctions do not in themselves contravene article 6 of the Convention, which guarantees the right to fair trial, since they 224 225 ECtHR, 12th April 2005, Witfield vs. United Kingdom. ECtHR, 9th October 2003, Ezeh and Connors. 138