enabling the provision of information to persons deprived of liberty. These initiatives deserve to be encouraged since they are still far from being systematic. Finally, it is also necessary to note the consistency which directors of prisons made themselves available in order to reply to the multiple cases taken up with them by the Contrôleur général, following the letters that the latter receives from persons deprived of liberty (the very great majority of which are sent by prisoners). However, although their replies show a desire to shed light upon the situations mentioned, sometimes in detail, and to pass on the whole of the information that the inspectorate needs in order to fulfil its duties, they are not always sent within the strict deadlines, nor are they always satisfactory as far as the contents are concerned. It is therefore not an easy task to assess the actions taken in response to the Contrôleur général’s recommendations and following the inspectorate’s action on the ground more generally, as well as via the cases referred to the authorities. The Act of 30th October 2007, article 9 of which instituted the Inspectorate of places of deprivation of liberty, gave the Contrôleur général the right to expressly ask ministers to set out their observations in response to reports on “the state, organisation and operation” of places inspected. He may also put forward proposals for amendments to the applicable legislative and regulatory provisions (article 10 of the abovementioned act). On the other hand, the Act makes no provision to enable requests to be made to the Government for the issuing of reports to the Contrôleur général or to Parliament, which set out the actions taken in response to assessments and recommendations. It should also recalled that, in spite of repeated requests to the various ministries concerned, the circulars and instructions that ministers and their departments adopt, some of which concern subjects taken up by the Contrôleur général, are still not sent to the latter for the purposes of information. Once again, this annual report provides the occasion to recall that it is necessary for the whole of the official texts concerning places of deprivation of liberty to be sent to the Contrôleur général des lieux de privation de liberté for information. On five occasions since taking up his post, the Contrôleur général has used the possibility, mentioned under article 40 of the code of criminal procedure, of reporting practices liable to constitute serious crimes or offences to the public prosecutor at courts of first instance. Contrary to the provisions of article 40-2 of the code of criminal procedure, the Contrôleur général has never been informed of the actions taken in response to the cases thus referred to the public prosecutor. An example of a response of high quality given by the director of an institution, following an inspection that took place in July 2012 (response given in November 2012 after the sending of the findings in October by the Contrôleur général) is given below. The director of the institution concerned firstly indicated that the findings had been passed on to the various departments involved (SPIP, UCSA, CLE), in order to collect their comments and allow them to follow up the observations made. This practice is particularly positive and should be brought into general use. In support of the reply, the director of the institution then handed over a table composed of five columns: observations contained in the findings, the institution’s response, planned actions, person in charge of the action, schedule of measures to be taken. In terms of improving the material conditions of detention, for example, plans for the year 2013 include the installation of pegs on the outer edge of all shower walls, the installation of swing doors in the bathroom areas of cells, the renovation of dilapidated facilities in the 79