The layout of the room also differs greatly from one institution to another: the members of the committee sometimes sit on a platform; the prisoner often stands in a dock. Sometimes, the spot where the prisoner has to stand before the members of the committee is indicated by a mark on the floor. In the vast majority of cases delegation authorisations from the director of the institution are displayed in the room, concerning the chairmanship of the committee and placements in the punishment wing pending hearings. In most institutions, prisoners called to appear before the disciplinary committee are expected to pack their affairs beforehand, with a view to possible placement in the punishment wing. In certain institutions, this procedure is justified by reasons of safeguard of the person’s property, several prisoners often occupying the same cell. However, it is perceived as bullying in cases where prisoners have individual accommodation. Generally speaking, this practice is tantamount to judgement in advance. Prisoners called to appear before the disciplinary committees sometimes undergo different search procedures: frisk searches before appearances followed by strip searches in case of pronouncement of punishment cell sanctions, or a single strip search before appearance and placement in the punishment wing. Sometimes, two strip searches are ordered: one before the appearance, the other at the time of entering the punishment cell. The frequency of disciplinary committee meetings differs from one institution to the next. Within institutions of large capacity, two specific days are devoted to disciplinary hearings; generally speaking, twice a week. A third hearing may be scheduled according to requirements or if a prisoner has been placed in the punishment wing pending appearance before the disciplinary committee. On the contrary, in small remand prisons and in long-term detention centres, whose prison population is considered “calm”, there are no specific days allocated for the holding of hearings; they take place according to need. The office of secretary of the committee is either held by the assessor taken from among the warders, or by a prison official who is not a member of the committee. In the first scenario, the assessor is completely absorbed by writing tasks, which prevents them from actively participating in the proceedings. In some cases the prison officer assessor is also responsible for keeping order during the hearing. It is not usual for face to face comparison of evidence and collection of testimonies to be organised during disciplinary committee sessions; moreover, such procedures should have already taken place at the inquiry stage (see above). The inspectors met several lawyers who complained bitterly of the absence of real debates and comparison of testimonies. Moreover, the inspectors ascertained that video surveillance recordings are very rarely used as means of evidence during disciplinary committee sessions and that no monitors are installed in committee rooms. The circular from the director of the prisons administration department dated 9 th June 2011 makes express provision for the presence of an interpreter during disciplinary hearings. However, the inspectors have never noted the presence of any interpreter in disciplinary committee sessions. When prisoners who do not understand the French language appear before disciplinary committees, if any translation is carried out it is generally done by a prison official or, if necessary, by a fellow prisoner. These solutions are not satisfactory. In at least one institution 206 206 Circular JUSK 1140024C. 114