the Contrôleur général delegated two inspectors to visit this detention centre. It was noted, during the on-site verifications, that the report was actually a personal document of the mail officer (a sort of “reminder”), sent to the prison administration and the supervision every fifteen days for updates. Nevertheless, the inspectors were assigned to verify the methods of control of the correspondence addressed to these two detainees, since a special procedure was implemented under prison intelligence; thus, all of the letters received, except those from protected authorities, were photocopied. Still, it must be noted that there was no confiscation as defined in Article R. 57-8-19 of the criminal procedure code28. A careful examination of the authorities’ register showed that the incoming and outgoing letters of the CGLPL were properly noted, as were those from lawyers. The inspectors observed an excellent maintenance of the registers, which permitted an effective traceability of the letters. Moreover, an excellent practice had been implemented, i.e. having the detainees sign the arrival and departure registers for letters to/from authorities. An association informed the CGLPL of the situation of an Albanian family, a mother and her two children aged three years and eight months, and two and a half months, respectively. Being particularly attentive to the situation of families placed in administrative detention centres (CRA), the CGLPL wished to carry out on-site verifications of the facility in which the family was being held. The inspectors therefore visited the CRA of Mesnil-Amelot to oversee the arrival of the family (from the CRA of Toulouse-Cornebarrieu) and the methods of its treatment. The CGLPL observed that the conditions of treatment of the children were satisfactory, especially as regards the material conditions of accommodation and the provision of childcare products. During all of the transfers, it was observed that the use of means of restraint was suitable and detailed. The CGLPL wished to recommend, in general, that adults accompanied with children should not be handcuffed or shackled, for the best interests of the child. During the entire presence of the escort, the inspectors noted the attentive and respectful behaviour of these officers towards the mother as well as her two children. Still, the CGLPL recommended that during movements and transfers in vehicles, for safety reasons, the children should be seated in car seats. Finally, the treatment within the local deportation block (ULE) was appropriate as regards the presence of children, the family was not placed in the cells and the mother was not searched on her arrival in the ULE. In reply to the observations made by the Contrôleur général, the Director General of the French national police force and the director of the border police of Roissy-Charles-de-Gaulle and Le Bourget both indicated that all measures will henceforth be taken so that children below ten years, transported in a police vehicle, are secured with an authorised child-securing system that ensures their safety. - Having for several years monitored the individual situation of a female detainee and having been informed of the methods of her treatment in the disciplinary wing of the prison of Metz, the Contrôleur général delegated two inspectors to carry out verifications on-site and of the documents, following which recommendations were sent to the administrative department of the institution and to the Minister of Justice. In them, the CGLPL recommended blocking the peephole located above the toilets, since its location did not respect the dignity of the persons placed in the disciplinary wing. The window, blocked with a pierced metal sheet, does not allow anyone to look outside: the CGLPL recommended that this obstruction should be removed and replaced with security devices that allow looking outside. Arrangements must be made to ensure that the disciplinary cell benefits from sufficient artificial lighting. The courtyard of the women’s disciplinary wing is a room and not a courtyard, and has a ceiling with a height equal to that of a cell; this ceiling has no overhead opening. The CGLPL issued recommendations in favour of Article R. 57-8-19 of the criminal procedure code states that “The decision to withhold a written correspondence, either received or sent, is informed to the detainee by the head of the institution within a maximum of three days. When the decision concerns a sentenced person, the head of the institution informs the sentence board of this. When it concerns a remand prisoner, he/she informs the judge in charge of the procedure case-file of this. The withheld correspondence is filed in the individual dossier of the detainee. It is given back on his/her release.” 28 95