In EPMs, maintenance of cells is an obligation incumbent upon the minors, to whom maintenance products are handed over on request. The inspectors were surprised by the filthy state of certain cells, which not only bears witness to lack of supervision, but manifestly also to lack of controls. Daily life in EPMs is broken up by the activities generally organised, the quality of which is highly dependent upon the dynamism of the prison officer-tutor team and, more particularly, the PJJ 96. Access to the exercise yard is, in most cases, strictly regulated within timeslots for which there is no serious justification. Apart from activities, the minors’ ordinary social life consists of no more than conversations and “yo-yoing”, in spite of the gratings. In CEFs, it is not rare for minors to be left in completely unproductive inactivity (leading one juvenile court judge to tell the inspectors that he preferred to imprison a minor in an EPM, in all awareness of this type of situation, rather than in a CEF of this kind; it is not unworthy of note that, for his part, the director of the EPM concerned, whom the inspectors also met, was in favour of periods of boredom-inducing inactivity as a source of reflection). With the occasional exception, the question of outings only arises in CEFs (although there is nothing, apart from the cumbersome nature of temporary release authorisations and procedures, to prohibit the putting in place of escorted cultural or sports outings in EPMs). In CEFs therefore, outings are in principle prohibited at least at the beginning of placements; the idea being to set down a framework in priority. According to the minor’s behaviour, escorted outings are subsequently put in place, at the same time as more or less controlled return visits to the family. In certain CEFs, outings appear to be a “reward” shown in the “catalogue” of entitlements earned in connection with the “points licence 97”. In others, outings are clearly identified as educational tools, thanks to their underlying objectives in particular (outings of a cultural nature or centred on the notion of citizenship). The latter approach obviously appears more conducive to autonomy than the former. Certain CEFs allow young people to go out on their own, in most cases for school or work placements/training courses and, more exceptionally, leisure activities (“we take them to the swimming pool and go and get them afterwards, we have to show them a bit of trust at the end of the placement”). This question is entirely dependent upon the quality of the analysis governing decisions of this kind and upon controls conducted after the event. The inspectors thus questioned the legitimacy of the “weekends of preparation for autonomy” organised in one institution which, moreover, took a particularly harsh and inappropriate position with regard to controls (strip searches on return from weekends), in which relations of domination were not absent; certain young people, in general those with no prospect of returning to the family home, were authorised to go to a hotel for two days, subject to remaining in close contact with the tutors (in the form of shared meals in particular). This practice had been validated by the judge. The CGLPL recommends a mode of organisation guaranteeing progressive support of minors towards becoming autonomous, while respecting their duties and rights. Minors should be obliged to take care of the maintenance of their rooms or cells and contribute to tasks of collective interest, under the supervision and with the support of the teams. Moreover, they should have the benefit of activities – school or training, cultural, sports and 96 In several institutions, the inspectors noted this service’s difficulty in using collective activities as an aid for educational relations. In other places, it was observed that a form of rivalry led certain prison officers to stand in the way of personal educational interviews. 97 A system of positive and negative sanctions corresponding to certain behaviours. 117