Conclusion
Résumé
The process of European monitoring and judicial review that both contribute to the rise of the inverted panopticon has been extended over time to such an extent that certain prisoners have been progressively in a position to exert some control over their prison conditions by lodging complaints with the ECtHR and gaining the backing of some NGOs, scholars and human rights institutions. Since 2005 at least, this monitoring system has however radically changed and expanded its scope and obligations imposed on states to such an extent that it could be described as an influential and spreading sociolegal trend which is contributing to the development of modern societies. This phenomenon is such that we assume that it leads to the development of an inverted panopticon by which certain prisoners and NGOs are in a position to challenge the authority of national prison administrations through the ECtHR case law. This trend has also been fostered by the role played by NGOs and the development of a European human rights regime. In parallel, the human rights regime established by the ECtHR and backed up by the EU to a certain extent, the CPT, NGOs, domestic courts and national prison administrations has also led to the development of a renewed punitiveness partly based on the traditional panopticon and techniques of surveillance. This trend is clearly obvious in the field of suicides and homicide prevention, life sentences under ECHR Article 2, the execution of their sentences and their potential reintegration under ECHR Article 5. The punitive process has been strongly reinforced through the rising coercive dimension of human rights that applies the criminal apparatus to protect and deter human rights violations. Domestic violence, hate speech and crime, rape and sexual offenses are subjected to such coercive rights and the sword function of human rights. The renewed prison structures and prison staff are precisely subjected to a tension between the traditional panopticon (through traditional and new forms of surveillance) and the rise of the inverted panopticon. In this regard, we have made the assumption that these trends coexist and could partly explain current penal contradictions and even the so-called penal volatility. Future research could investigate these developments further in all their multi-dimensions and could more closely unravel the tensions, contradictions, prospects and pitfalls of the varied interplay between human rights and penality.

