6.3 Satisfactory Application of the Act of 12th April 2000 At the time of their visits, the inspectors ascertained that the provisions of this Act were henceforth applied overall, after a period of uncertainty which lasted for several years. This applies in particular to decisions of dismissal from employment and training on nondisciplinary grounds, which in most cases are written, justified and notified to the prisoner who can enlist the assistance of a lawyer. Decisions of suspension of visiting permits made against prisoners’ friends and family henceforth comply with the inter partes principle. 6.4 Numerous but Not Always Effective Inspections Judges are bound to visit the prisons within their territorial jurisdiction at least once a year (Article 10 of the Act). The inspectors noted that this obligation is very unevenly respected. Before drafting their annual reminder, it is very common for the heads of courts to content themselves with making contact with the manager or managers of prisons within their jurisdiction by telephone. It is extremely rare for written orders or observations to be placed in the register reserved for this purpose following visits by judges. Article 5 of the Law instituted an assessment board (conseil d’évaluation), in charge of “assessing the conditions of operation of the institution and, if necessary, proposing any measures likely to improve them”. These assessment boards replace the supervisory committees (commission de surveillance). The inspectors observed that the assessment boards met once a year, never more; the deadline of 30th April each year provided for by the circular of 23rd of January 2012 is not always complied with. It appears that the first assessment boards resulting from the Act of 24th of November 2009, have not yet proven their greater effectiveness as compared to the supervisory committees of the past. The assessment boards appear too similar to the supervisory committees, which showed their ineffectiveness in the past. Furthermore, unlike the latter committees, it appears that many assessment boards have given up making any (even formal) inspections of the institution. The discussions in this regard are even more abstruse. Giving this new body the means of fulfilling its duties of control remains an objective. The prison population and prisoners’ families should be more systematically informed in advance of imminent meetings of this body, so that a greater number of letters setting out claims can be sent in sealed envelopes to the prefect, who is the chair of the assessment board. The members of the board should be able to hold discussions with prisoners in complete confidentiality before, during and after the inspection. Finally, new members could be added to the composition of the assessment board: the presence of elected representatives from internal professional representative organisations is one possible proposal, as is the presence of representatives of prisoners’ families. The Contrôleur Général des Lieux de Privation de Liberté has been inspecting prisons for more than five years in application of the Act of 30th of October 2007. His role within prisons was reasserted by article 4 of the Act of 24th of November 2009. 171 prisons were inspected in the period from 1st September 2008 to 1st September 2013. Nine follow-up inspections were conducted in prisons. At the time of their visits, the inspectors noted that the Contrôleur Général des Lieux de Privation de Liberté did not systematically appear on the list of authorities with which exchange of correspondence is not subject to control. This omission in the rules and regulations sometimes leads to infringement of the provisions of article 4 of the Prisons Act 108