with respect to the objective of the cash aid, which is to allow detainees without resources to pay money for current expenses, and not for savings. Finally, an information sheet on the measure of cash aid shall be proposed to the SPIP for improving the information provided to detainees. A study will be conducted by the departments to modify the circular dated 17 May 2013 in consistency with the provisions of Article D. 347-1 of the criminal procedure code. 6.2.4 Deductions in favour of the Treasury The referrals of several detainees subject to deductions in favour of the Treasury from their personal account due to the deterioration of property belonging to the prison administration highlighted three major difficulties: determining the accountability of the deteriorations, determining the reparation amount and the methods of seizure. Pursuant to the amended Law dated 30 October 2007, the Contrôleur général wished to know the observations of the prison administration department on all of the points mentioned below and to recommend that a stricter legal framework should be planned, especially via a circular or a modification of the statutory provisions. On the day this report was drafted, the prison administration had not yet sent any written reply. Article D. 332 of the criminal procedure code states that “the prison administration has the option of automatically deducting amounts from the detainees in compensation for material damage caused, without prejudice to the disciplinary and criminal procedures, if any”. The reparations for physical damage, as provided for by this Article fall under the third-party liability regime that allows the following information to be established by the head of the institution: the act or action (voluntary or otherwise) of the person, the damage and above all, the causality link between the two. Several situations submitted to the CGLPL have shown that the characterisation of the damage is not always sufficiently accurate. Moreover, the causality link between the action of the detainee and the damage must be established in a detailed manner by the head of the institution. The proof of the causality link also presumes that the prison administration can establish that the observed damage could have only resulted from the action of the detainee concerned, which gives rise to the question of whether inventories agreed by both parties are systematically executed every time a person enters and leaves a cell. While, as is, Article D. 332 of the criminal procedure code does not provide for such a mutual exchange - and while even the administrative courts of first instance have agreed that, with very few exceptions, Article 24 of the Law dated 12 April 2000 would not apply in similar cases the CGLPL deemed that organising a prior mutual exchange between the administration department and the person concerned on the question of accountability would constitute a good practice, which could usefully be sanctioned on the legislative or statutory level in due course. In fact, the consequences of a deduction can be significant with respect to the financial situation of detainees and the effectiveness of the means of remedy, which are in fact quite illusionary due to the expected duration of such a procedure. The persons subject to a deduction in favour of the Treasury do not appear to be systematically able to check the quote established to assess the cost of the reparations that they are supposed to fund. When such a quote exists and is shown to them, it is often not very detailed. Most of these quotes do not mention any details on the calculation leading to the sums to be deducted, and the methods of determining the said sums are also questionable. Thus, 66