The Right to Express One’s Opinion. In EPMs, the exercise of this right is provided for by article 29 of the Prisons Act of 24th November 2009. It might have been assumed that, in institutions of limited size with educational aims, the putting in place of this means of consultation would not present any difficulties; actual practice tends to lead to the opposite conclusion: a few “menu committees” are put in place, which can hardly be claimed to fulfil the desirable objective of promoting a sense of responsibility. However, a few initiatives need to be emphasised, such as the putting in place of an internal newspaper and, still more, the intentions of one EPM visited, which at the time of the control was thinking about putting a real social life committee in place, following the example of those existing in certain CEFs. Indeed, in CEFs it should be possible for freedom of expression to be manifested through “social life committees” advocated by the Act of 2nd January 2002, or any equivalent body. In practice, the inspectors ascertained that they were not always effective, or in accordance with their purpose. Certain institutions organise meetings at regular intervals on topics proposed by the young people and/or tutors concerning current affairs and life in the institution. Other professionals try to put more limited expression groups in place, with clearly educational aims (involving “teaching the young people to listen, argue, think etc.”). A few rare institutions have put an internal newspaper in place with limited circulation. Initiatives of this kind should be encouraged. As far as freedom of religion is concerned, one can only note that in EPMs the possibility of practising the religion of one’s choice sometimes comes up against the absence of a Muslim chaplain. In CEFs, secularism is promoted, more often in order to avoid any religious occasions than to permit them all. In CEFs and EPMs alike, for young people of Muslim faith, freedom of religion in most cases amounts to being able to exclude pork from their diet. Ascertaining that the right to assert one’s opinion is seldom implemented within prisons for minors, the CGLPL recommends the putting in place of “social life committees” enabling young people to express their opinions in compliance with the common interest. The Right to Education and Training. These rights appear to be essential tools for autonomy. In EPMs, teaching is entrusted to a team, in general qualified and placed under the supervision of a head teacher or local teaching manager present on the site. Although vacant posts are to be noted, the framework is in general satisfactory and occasional difficulties do not affect the teaching in its principle. Education is compulsory in these institutions and personalised insofar as possible; it incorporates a dimension of vocational preparation; the taking of exams is taken into account with regard to transfers and, overall, it appears to operate in accordance with the requirements of the preparation of minors for autonomy. In CEFs, these duties are entrusted to a single teacher, whose training is not guaranteed 94 and who is isolated in the exercise of their profession. In principle, education is compulsory. The inspectors nonetheless ascertained that certain CEFs showed a certain “tolerance”, apparently more as an easy way out than as part of any educational method. The inspectors also ascertained that one CEF, catering for minors between 13 and 16 years of age, had had no teachers whatsoever for a period of several months. These double findings (post permanently vacant in an institution catering for young people subject to compulsory schooling and professional isolation of individual teachers working in a difficult context, requiring sharing and control of practices) are particularly regrettable and paradoxical with regard to minors, in general placed for periods of six months, for whom school constitutes a major issue. 94 Several teachers encountered informed the inspectors that they had not received any specific training. 115