constitute a simple “aggravation of the conditions of detention” 226, on the other hand it considers that article 6 should apply when disciplinary sanctions result in additional deprivation of liberty by prolonging the duration of imprisonment. 227 Such seems to be the case with regard to withdrawal of remission credits, of which the connection with disciplinary sanctions is obvious, to such an extent that they are sometimes made to correspond to the number of days for which prisoners are placed in punishment cells. The application of this type of “scale” is ascertained in most of the institutions inspected. * * * As we have just seen, certain disciplinary practices were constructed in an empirical manner on the basis of legal uncertainties. Thus, in the absence of formal disciplinary regulations meeting the requirements of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, the human imagination, which is very fertile in this respect, has invented a whole range of disguised, unlawful and clandestine sanctions within institutions where their presence is unexpected, in particular with regard to committal to hospitalisation and patients who are prison inmates. While the disciplinary regimes within other institutions, such as detention centres for illegal immigrants (CRA) and young offenders’ institutions (CEF), have poorly-defined contours and might be described as being “in their embryonic stages”. Provisions exist, however they remain very inadequate, allowing a non-negligible proportion of arbitrariness to remain. Prisons, on the other hand, unquestionably possess real disciplinary regulations subject to codified rules, though much room for improvement nevertheless remains. Indeed, the existence of sanctions that are indirect, or devoid of any legal and statutory basis, is a reality and certain practices, which resemble the absence of law, are similarly not exempt from arbitrariness. For this reason the Contrôleur général des lieux de privation de liberté here formulates a set of recommendations. 1/ With regard to the management of discipline and sanctions in health institutions The Contrôleur général recommends: - that from the moment that a prohibition of a patient committed to hospitalisation in a mental health institution from making telephone calls or engaging in written correspondence can be justified on purely therapeutic grounds, the prohibition decision should be taken in writing, specially justified and recorded in a specific register presented to all inspecting authorities at the time of inspections within the institution; - that a specific register should also be opened concerning correspondence sent to the administrative and judicial authorities. Moreover, the Contrôleur général recommends, in each health institution: - 226 227 that an ad hoc register should moreover be opened listing each placement in seclusion rooms and under physical restraint, in addition to their entries in patients’ individual files; ECtHR, 20th January 2011, Payet vs. France. ECtHR, 28th June 1984, Campbell and Fell. 139