officer-tutor” partnership in place (and then, probably, of education under constraint). The educational objectives, determined by the circular of 24th March 2013, are in priority oriented towards “prevention of the shock of imprisonment”, “restoration and maintenance of family ties” and “social integration and preparation for release”. It makes no mention either of the search for autonomy or of personal liberty as an essential part thereof. The CGLPL recommends the drawing up of internal documents – service plan and/or institutional project, internal rules and regulations and booklet for new arrivals – focused upon minors’ interests. These documents should be known, understood and accepted by the teams supposed to implement them. They should constitute a day-to-day working tool, serving as a reference for practices. 2.2.1.2 Implementation of Autonomy and Respect for Fundamental Rights In CEFs, the closed character of the institution should not constitute an obstacle to provision of support towards becoming autonomous; this principle was reasserted in the report of the assessment mission published in January 2013 92. Yet, in practice, it still does not appear to be a decisive aspect of the system; conversely, in some cases the margin of autonomy left to the young person gives cause for concern. As far as EPMs are concerned, minors are in all cases only left a small margin of autonomy, due to the penal character of the institution. It would be regrettable were this explanation in the form of an alibi to hinder all change. Access to rooms and right to privacy. In EPMs, presence in the cells (which are always individual) is in general compulsory outside of the timeslots for activities, meals and exercise; opening of the doors is exclusively dependent upon prison officers. Although the cell leaves a margin of autonomy (watching the television programme of one’s choice, writing, reading or doing nothing), it is not considered to be a private area (in the positive sense) but rather an area associated with punishment and/or exclusion. It is not impossible that the damage and lack of maintenance often observed in cells may, at least in part, be explained by this absence of recognition of a real right to privacy. In CEFs, rooms are individual and access is always regulated, ranging from pure and simple prohibition during the day, until 8 p.m. in some cases, to a certain flexibility, which always presupposes authorisation from a tutor for a limited and monitored period of time in the room. The grounds given involve providing minors with a routine similar to that of young people of their own age, who go to school or work. In practice, in the middle of the day and evening, the inspectors have often seen young people unoccupied (without any other possibility than the television in the common room, table football or ping-pong) or tense (unavoidably confronted with the unchosen presence of other young people), without the possibility of being alone or devoting themselves to some activity, or inactivity, without being in the view of third parties. A margin of autonomy is left to minors in CEFs for the decoration of their rooms, with the entirely understandable limitation of the absence of damage and the nature of posters (no pornography). The inspectors observed that these rooms were in better condition than in most EPMs, where they also have a certain margin of liberty in this domain. 92 Page 5 of this report, drawn up by the IGSJ, the IGAS and the IPJJ, states that "CEFs pursue two objectives… Putting in place a reinforced and personalised educational and pedagogical project adapted to the personality of the minors catered for, in order to lead them towards a process of becoming autonomous". 111