cells, particularly in cells on the ground and lower floors, of which their occupants quite rightly complain. In numerous institutions (including establishments provided for under the “thirteen thousand” programme) the electrical fittings are not adequate to needs. Reports were issued in 2012 concerning several institutions in which prisoners cannot hope to have the benefit of hotplates for cooking or (in one of them at least) refrigerators. We know that in the absence of hotplates one alternative is provided by “fuel tablets”, which users are strongly advised against using in confined spaces due to carcinogenic risks. In 2012, the Contrôleur général referred the possibility of prohibiting the purchase of these tablets in prison shops to the head of the prisons administration, without receiving an answer to date. In most cases exercise yards lack toilet facilities or, when they do exist, they are in such a poor state as to be unusable. It is recalled that persons who go down for a walk have to wait until the exercise period is over before returning to their cells. Serious improvement needs to be made on this point. 2.5 Treatment in Hospitals without Consent 2.5.1 Background details In a situation that has been marked for several years by a considerable increase in measures of hospitalisation without consent143, the application of the Act of 5th July 2011, which appreciably reformed procedures in this regard, is still a major concern in 2012. 2.5.1.1 The Scope of the Act of 5th July 2011 In the first place, the Constitutional Council has been able to assess the constitutionality of the law that was made necessary by its rulings of 2010 and 2011. If an illustration were needed of the increased capacity for legal review of the law introduced by the constitutional reform of 2008, which introduced priority preliminary rulings on constitutionality, it could easily be provided by the question of treatment without consent. Indeed, on a question referred to it by an association, the Constitutional Council gave its verdict on 20th April 2012144 with regard to the law of 5th July 2011 and, more specifically, with regard to three of the provisions thereof, which are here examined in increasing order of importance. The first concerns scenarios in which judges decide to discontinue proceedings or find an absence of criminal responsibility; the provisions of the law provide that they may, when they consider that the person concerned presents a serious danger for public order due problems of mental health, refer the matter to the departmental committee for psychiatric treatment, on the one hand, and the prefect on the other hand. The latter may, on production of a medical certificate, decide to have the person committed for psychiatric treatment 145. The Constitutional Council censured this provision, on the grounds that it had not been accompanied with adequate guarantees in the Act, in particular insofar as such proceedings were possible whatever the offence committed and its degree of seriousness and that the person subject to trial was not 143 This does not mean that the number of persons hospitalised without consent has increased to the same extent; several successive measures may be taken with regard to the same person. 144 N° 2012-235 QPC, Association de réflexion et de proposition d’actions sur la psychiatrie [“Association for nd reflection and proposals for action on psychiatry”]. La semaine juridique, 2 July 2012, note Péchillon. 145 Committal for psychiatric treatment at the request of a representative of the State (ASPDRE), this measure was formerly referred to as hospitalisation by court order (hospitalisation d’office). 64