to 100%). A minority of directors of institutions have implemented the principle of “zero tolerance”: all acts constituting breaches of discipline are laid out before the di sciplinary committee. On the other hand, certain directors of institutions only inform the committee of the most serious acts. The majority of decision-makers select cases in what they describe as “sensible” manner. Prison officers have frequently complained to inspectors “of the laxity” of the management “which most often files cases away without pursuing them”. Moreover, prisoners are rarely informed when incident reports against them are filed away without being pursued. When proceedings are instituted, the deadline for appearance before the disciplinary authority varies greatly from one institution to another. These deadlines may thus vary, ranging from periods of a few days to several months. Sanctions taken too long after the commission of the act no longer have any sense. Since 1st June 2011, assessors taken from civil society – who are therefore exterior to the prisons administration – sit on disciplinary committees. Indeed, members of the managerial staff no longer take part in the disciplinary committee, which is thereby deprived of an essential source of information on imprisonment. In June 2012 the Contrôleur général chose to meet with voluntary assessors in order to discuss their experiences with them. According to them, effective implementation of this reform was difficult: the presiding judges of regional courts of first instance have not shown great initiative in this regard, with a few rare exceptions; very often, the directors of the prisons concerned have had to contact “potential” candidates themselves. These new assessors do not, in most cases, have the benefit of any training provided by the prisons administration prior to taking up their posts, although it should be noted that most of them have had the opportunity of spending half a day meeting the director of the institution and visiting the prison. However, they are not always informed of the internal rules and regulations. Some of them complained that they are “not always consulted by the chair of the committee”. However, most of them acknowledge that they “have their full place within the committee and have been very well received by the prison officials”. They spoke of the “great humanity of the staff, far removed from the negative image portrayed by the media”. It is not unknown for disciplinary committee sessions to be held in the absence of the external assessor or, exceptionally, for certain external assessors never to be called to attend. 2.1.2 Disciplinary Committee Procedures During their inspections, the inspectors ascertained great heterogeneity with regard to the places where disciplinary committee sessions are held. With a few very rare exceptions, the committees always actually sit within punishment wings, in particular in very recent institutions. In old institutions, a former cell is fitted out as a committee room in most cases. The available surface area does not facilitate the serenity of hearings: the chair, the two assessors, the prisoner and the lawyers are “a bit cramped”. Due to lack of room, a table cannot be plac ed at the defence’s disposal. Because of lack of available space or the unsuitability of existing premises, committees sometimes even hold their sessions in a corridor (such is the case in a detention centre in the West of France) or in the visiting room (in a remand prison in the North of France). Committee rooms may be “mixed” facilities, insofar as they are sometimes also used as places for holding interviews with the prisoners of the institution. 113