During the day, access to toilets sometimes constitutes a problem, including in CEFs: the inspectors noted that, in one of these institutions, the young people were obliged to ask a tutor for toilet paper. The reason given was distrust, made into a principle: “If we leave it at their disposal, they’ll block the toilets”. This calls the right to dignity into question. The CGLPL recommends that a certain flexibility should be applied with regard to access to rooms and cells and, all the more so, to toilets, taking both general security and the minor’s circumstances and personality into account. Right to private and family life. In EPMs, the operation of visiting rooms is modelled on that of prisons and the same difficulties are to be found in them, in particular with regard to restrictions of access and lack of confidentiality. With regard to minors, whose number is moreover limited, for whom the maintenance or restoration of family ties appears essential, it is regrettable that greater flexibility is not considered appropriate, and all the more so as the homes of certain families are very distant from the institution. In CEFs, the idea is generally admitted of suspension of the exercise of home visit rights in the course of the first weeks of placement. This restriction is justified by family inadequacies and the need to cut the young people off from their environment of origin. However, the inspectors are surprised that judges rarely address this aspect of rights, leaving it to the institution. They also observed that, in certain institutions, returns from weekends gave rise to searches prejudicial to the young people’s dignity (obliged to undress and put on a bath robe); it being impossible to justify the systematic application of this practice on the grounds of giving priority to security. Conversely, it should be emphasised that the arrangement of an apartment intended for the exercise of visiting rights by families living far from institutions is a practice that respects the right to family life. The CGLPL recommends an extension of family visiting rights inside institutions and the creation of premises suitable for confidential and friendly meetings. These visits should provide an opportunity for exchanges with the educational and/or pedagogical teams and promote the passing on of information, with the intention of both respect for parental authority and the exercise of educational action. As far as other methods of maintaining bonds are concerned, mobile phones are prohibited in all CEFs (and all the more so in EPMs). Several reasons are given: compliance with the prohibition of entering its relations with the persons appointed by the court, possibility of engaging in various different types of trafficking, protection of image rights and Internet access. Although access to the telephone of the institution is possible, the choice of persons who may be contacted is limited to close relations and sometimes exclusively the parents. The young person cannot choose the time of the call and its length is sometimes limited. The reason for these restrictions often remains vague (respect for communal life, need to establish distance etc.). In certain CEFs, calls have to be made in the presence of a tutor and the reasons given in support of this practice are no more precise (“There is sometimes blackmail”, “We find out about the quality of the relations” etc.). Other institutions have much more respectful practices: calls are made to the institution, the call is passed to the young person by means of a cordless telephone and the conversation takes place in complete confidentiality (which, from an educational point of view, does not prevent the tutor from being attentive to the young person’s state at the end of the call and subsequently taking the question up with them). In EPMs, the telephone is in general placed in a small hall located in the immediate vicinity of the “prison officer-tutor” team’s office, and 112