In this chapter, we show that NGOsNGOs have obtained landmark and pilot judgmentspilot judgment from the Strasbourg Court and substantial changes to penal and prison policiesprison policies from their own national countries through litigationlitigation and active participation in the execution of certain ECtHREuropean Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) judgments. In this regard, we assume that NGOs and prisoners could foster an ‘inverted panopticon’ based on the monitoring of penal and prison policies. The Foucauldian panopticon (the constant multifaceted supervision of prisoners) seems to be inverted since the supervision exerted by the European judicial and institutional bodies over the prison administrations is influenced by the complaints by prisoners and NGOs to them. This chapter highlight a justice gap between black-letter law as conceived by the ECtHR concerning Article 13 and the development of the right to complaint before Belgian and French domestic courts which ignore the importance of austerity, digitalisation and coercion in prisoners’ access to justice. In this regard, the European approach neglects justice in action from a critical criminological and socio-legal perspective. To understand this gap, we explore access to justice for prisoners and the impacts of austerity, digitalisation and coercion on prisoners through organisations and individually through their understanding of the context and their circumstances. We highlight three prison litigation models that differently impact access to justice and create inequalities through unequal and varied legal awareness levels among prisoners. We thus forge the concept of differentiated prison litigation to reflect the diversity of prison litigation models and their differentiated impacts on access to justice and inequalities among prisoners. The concept entails three main dimensions—the way litigation is internally organised—its sensitivity to austerity, digitalisation and coercion—its effects on the ground.