not far from communal areas. As in any prison, the conversation may be listened to 93. In the absence of reflection within the institutions (which has not been ascertained by the inspectors), it appears that respect for the confidentiality of conversations is dependent upon goodwill on the part of the prison officer or tutor, which is in no way a satisfactory situation. In EPMs, correspondence is subject to the same principles of control as in all prisons and poses the same difficulties. In CEFs, it is opened, in most cases in the young person’s presence, by persons and according to procedures which are rarely precisely defined (sometimes a secretary or a head of department). The argument put forward involves respect for the prohibitions made by courts: is thus a question of verifying the identity of the sender or addressee. It is in general, pointed out that the content is not checked, unless it is a parcel (verification of the lawful character of the contents) or when the tutors’ attention has been drawn to a specific difficulty. The CGLPL recalls that any violation of the freedom of correspondence should be justified on precise grounds, involving the minor’s interest or the duty of the institution, and that the judge should be informed thereof. As far as minors are concerned, the place of the family is not limited to the maintenance of bonds, but should be manifested in the exercise of parental authority, at least insofar as exercise thereof is compatible with the measure. In EPMs, the place of parents is often limited to notification issued, in writing, at the time of imprisonment of their child (concerning the operation of visiting rooms and the overall operation of the institution); in general, the teaching teams send school reports, and some of them provide meetings. Beyond this, family ties are considered to come within the jurisdiction of the PJJ. No specific projects have been passed on to the inspectors determining the manner in which these institutions intend to protect the parental authority. The inspectors ascertained that, even in CEFs, the place of parents was not always respected; it is apparently often easier for the teams to “work in place of” the parents than to “work with” them; this temptation is all the greater insofar as institutions are distant from the parental home and visits from open environment tutors are sometimes rare, either to the CEF or EPM, or to the family (one CEF tutor stated that “when the minor is here, they drop the case” with regard to his counterparts outside of the institutional environment charged with following the child’s development); this ignorance of the family is all the more regrettable insofar as the majority of young people return to their environment of origin at the end of the placement. The CGLPL recommends that a specific information booklet should be sent to the holders of parental authority. Insofar as possible, they should be involved in the educational initiatives undertaken and, as a minimum, be kept regularly informed of the minor’s progress and the projects implemented. Right to information and access to legal advice. In EPMs and CEFs alike, the right to information is implemented in a rather haphazard manner: Internet access is in general prohibited (EPM) or limited (CEF); however, the inspectors noted that certain CEFs made use of this tool in a pertinent manner in accordance with their educational role, for example in order to look for work placements and prepare for a cultural outings. In both types of institution access to newspapers and journals is limited, in libraries as well as, - in the case of EPMs-, prison shops. However, the fact that the local newspaper was made available in one EPM is to be emphasised. 93 Cf. Section on autonomy in prisons. 113