mentioned in the latter’s civil status record (in France, change of civil status being subject to a prior sex change operation). The director of the prisons administration department called for the revocation of this memorandum. When asked the reasons for this demand, he stated, in his letter of 13th June 2013, that the person concerned had not undergone a “sex change” and that article 57-7-81 of the Code of Criminal Procedure80 was therefore entirely respected. He added: “However, in the legitimate interest of avoiding any ambiguity, I informed the institutions of the possibility of appointing a graded officer to be present during these searches”. In the case of prisoners, access to a medical sex change operation is much more difficult and uncertain than for persons who are not imprisoned. No course of treatment is organised at the national level. The fact of making the conditions of imprisonment of transsexual persons dependent upon this medical operation alone, in reality leads to treating them in a degrading manner on a daily basis81. When they do not threaten public order and security, it needs to be possible for arrangements, identical to those found by the director of the institution concerned in the case, to be implemented on a case-by-case basis (as is often noted on other issues), in the legitimate interest of protection of dignity. Conversely, the idea of involving another prison officer in searches, who is asked to “be present” (and therefore to watch) does not appear very appropriate, to say the least. 4.6 Use of Data Recorded by Video Surveillance Systems in Prisons Several cases taken up by the Contrôleur Général raised the issue of the period for which images are kept, which are recorded by video surveillance cameras within the communal areas of prisons. The circular issued by the minister of Justice on 15th July 2013, concerning the terms of implementation of the processing of data of a personal character from “video protection systems” installed within and in the areas around premises and institutions of the prisons administration, does not enable any response to these questions. Indeed, it describes video surveillance as a technical means of protection enabling dissuasion of the commission of unlawful acts as well as pursuit thereof in case of ascertainment of offences, in liaison with the courts. Yet, contrary to the requirements of use for the purposes of recording evidence, the circular does not mention any minimum period for which images are to be conserved. Only the maximum period for which they can be stored (one month) is mentioned and imposed upon the heads of institutions (after this deadline, images have to be deleted). As a result the period for which images are kept may be very short and will not, in any case, be standardised between different institutions. This lack of control is likely to prevent any use of images for recording acts of violence committed within prisons and exposing the perpetrators thereof. Neither does the circular deal with the issue of the possible use of the images recorded within the framework of investigations prior to the appearance of prisoners before the disciplinary committee. This was one of the recommendations made by the Contrôleur Général in the part of his Annual Report for 2012 concerning discipline in places of deprivation of liberty82. The latter noted the poor quality of inquiry reports leading to appearances and the absence of any 80 This article provides that “Prisoners shall only be searched by officers of their own sex and under conditions which, while ensuring the effectiveness of checks, maintain respect for the inherent dignity of the human being”. 81 The consequences of this treatment are manifested in particular by acts of self-harm (self-mutilation and suicide). 82 Annual Report for 2012, p. 111 and table of recommendations, p. 304 74