When the full-body search of a person with reduced mobility is justified, it must be conducted in a closed room (Annual report of the CGLPL for 2012). The documents found in the cupboards during searches should be examined in the presence of the detainee and only by officers or warders specially appointed in writing by the head of the institution, and for the sole purpose of verifying that there are no hidden forbidden goods or substances; examining the documents themselves for the purpose of reading them must be banned (Opinion dated 11 July 2013 concerning the possession of personal documents by detainees and concerning their access to communicable documents). Children of incarcerated mothers may be searched only if there are serious suspicions that a rule may be violated, and the search must be strictly limited to the diaper of the child, by its own mother, in front of a third party, but must exclude any contact between the said third party and the child; this search must be subject to a written note, assigning this request to an officer or a warder; the mother must not be searched in the presence of her child (Opinion dated 8 August 2013 concerning young children in prison and their detained mothers). In the institutions visited in 2015, in general, the necessary measures were applied. Metal detectors were installed, and directives related to the personalisation of searches were distributed. However, the visits showed that the searches are still conducted according to different regimes, which must be used to identify the best practices and to correct a few inappropriate applications of the law. Several institutions state that body searches retain a systematic nature related to certain circumstances. Sometimes, there is a rather long list of situations in which detainees are systematically subjected to full-body searches, and several institutions have drafted such lists, which are very restrictive in general. As regards full-body searches on exiting the visiting rooms, they are generally conducted on detainees listed by a single multidisciplinary committee (CPU), but follow quite different methods: in one institution, the list is revised fortnightly, in most cases, it is revised every month, and in one case, it is revised only once every quarter. However, this method is still not systematic; for example, sometimes, the CPU does not meet and the list of persons to be subjected to full-body searches is proposed by the persons responsible for the buildings, updated by the first warder of the visiting rooms and is then validated by the detention head. In total, the proportion of detainees subjected to full-body searches is quite variable: 25 to 35% in one place, 15 to 25% in another, and even slightly less than 5%. The reasons for the measures, the traceability of the searches and the recording of their result are still not determined equally. While certain institutions provide the exact reason for the decision to subject a detainee to full-body searches, others only provide general reasons, and still others do not provide any reason at all. Sometimes, the searches and their results are recorded in the electronic liaison register, and sometimes in a physical register, but this is done very irregularly. Finally, the CGLPL collected testimonies of inappropriate practices. For example, in one institution, the methods for searching a transsexual do not respect their dignity. In another institution, during the in-processing of an inmate, the institution asks for an attestation from the escort, who always refuses to give it. In practice, this makes full-body searches of arriving inmates systematic. Multiple testimonies have mentioned humiliating and relentless practices; a posteriori, it 29