- at the end of this period, determines whether or not the serious infringement has ceased; - immediately makes public his observations and any responses from ministers, if he deems necessary. As may be recalled, the Contrôle Général is far from having made excessive use of this procedure: it was used once in 2011, with regard to the prison of Nouméa (New Caledonia); and once in the following year, in order to denounce the living and working conditions in Baumettes Prison (in Marseille). This number is in no way the result of any calculation, but solely a consequence of facts ascertained on the spot. In 2013, two teams of inspectors, of different composition, respectively visited “L’Arverne” young offenders’ institution at Pionsat (Puy-de-Dôme), between 27th and 30th August, and the “Txingudi” young offenders’ institution at Hendaye (Pyrénées-Atlantiques), between 23rd and 26th September. The situations which they witnessed and reported led the Contrôle Général to consider that serious infringements of the fundamental rights of the children accommodated in these two institutions made it necessary to use the emergency procedure. The two institutions were grouped together for the needs of the case (as well as in order to avoid directly calling individuals into question). Observations were submitted to the Minister of National Education, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Health and Social Affairs respectively. [Responses were received from…]. They were therefore published, with the observations, in the Journal Officiel of 13th November 2013. The facts ascertained are different in nature. At Pionsat, the serious educational shortcomings existing in the institution were emphasised. Not that there was any shortage of tutors in the latter. A team was present, made up of persons of great goodwill, though inadequately qualified as is often the case (the difficulty of the task renders recruitment difficult, under the current given pay and working conditions). However this team, which could scarcely be termed educational, lacked any formal project: the institutional project, written before the opening of the institution (probably in order to obtain approval from the authorities), was entirely theoretical, and in any case, unknown to the staff. Under the supervision of the latter, the children were therefore on a daily basis led to improvise activities, the educational content of which was at best debatable. Yet, article 29 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child stresses education and the meaning which it should have, with regard to the “development of the personality” and “mental and physical abilities” of each child “to their fullest potential”. This requirement is all the more important insofar as children placed in young offenders’ institutions by order of a judge are far from their families, while their criminal past bears witness to their individual instability, which educational efforts should endeavour to put right. Moreover, the Act concerning young offenders’ institutions provides that they shall be subject to surveillance and control measures in order to “organise consolidated educational and teaching follow-up work which is adapted” to the personality of the minors catered for. It was manifest that these stipulations and provisions were in no way applied at Pionsat. There were serious shortcomings with regard to education and, in the absence of provision of appropriate educational measures, the children catered for were therefore placed in danger. It should only be added that a new director, who arrived in the days preceding the inspection, was fully aware of 14