CPU meeting or by the CPU meeting as a COPEP178. These committees generally meet at least once a month, but it was noted in one institution of the DISP of Strasbourg that they may meet every week. The elaboration of the project “in cooperation” with the prisoner is subject to very different interpretations. In certain institutions, prisoners are asked to appear before the COPEP. In one long-term detention centre visited, the person is asked to make an annual assessment by means of a questionnaire fifteen days before their appearance before the CPU. The directions of the programme are then presented to them; “a kind of contract” between the person and the administration. In another long-term detention centre, prisoners present their projects for between thirty and forty-five minutes and end up with objectives and a schedule for meeting them. On their next appearance, they make an assessment of the objectives that had been set. Elsewhere, the presence of prisoners at the time of committee meetings ruling on PEPs is not required; only a summary is distributed to them. Nevertheless, in certain institutions, it is notified to the prisoners, who can add their remarks. Appearance of prisoners before the PEP committee should be the rule. The elaboration of the actual content of the PEP and the conditions of the latter are not straightforward for institutions, in view of the regulatory vagueness which prevails with regard to the concept in itself. This is manifested in remarks and recommendations made by the CPU which are sometimes vague and do not constitute objectives properly speaking. Re-examination of the PEP by the PEP committee or the CPU enables proper fulfilment and follow-up of the programme and the objectives fixed. Yet, in one of the long-term detention centres visited, the inspectors noted that none of the situations of prisoners examined between 2007 and 2010, with one exception, had been reviewed. In the vast majority of cases, the situations of persons registered in the PEP are only re-examined once a year179, which can prove very insufficient for persons close to release or likely to have the benefit of reduced sentencing. Although this rhythm appears suitable to the situation of persons serving long sentences, the latter should be able to request interviews with the professionals of the PEP scheme at any time, in order to have the benefit of support for projects that they wish to initiate. In certain institutions, the PEP is only implemented according to requests on the part of prisoners and therefore only concerns a limited part of the prison population. The combination of these practices, systematic study over time, and requests on the part of the administration and the persons concerned, is probably the most appropriate solution. At the present time, the PEP scheme still concerns a limited number of prisoners. Thus, in one of the largest institutions of the West of France, the inspectors noted that only about 20 prisoners were followed by the PEP psychologist whereas 172 were registered on the programme at the time of the inspection. Similarly, in a prison of the South of France, the file of a single convicted prisoner accommodated in the remand prison was examined at the time of the PEP follow-up CPU meeting. This situation is to a large extent attributable to problems linked to the human resources allocated to PEP, this factor appearing to be a major obstacle to the effectiveness of the provisions of article 89 of the Prisons Act. Indeed, in most cases, the burden of the scheme rests solely upon the PEP psychologist, the absence or departure of the latter leading de facto to suspension of the scheme. 178 179 PEP Committee. CGLPL, Annual Report for 2010, p.18. 116