The note from the Minister of Justice of 19th March 2012 makes it possible to respond to the Contrôleur général’s recommendations. It is not only aimed at reducing the current disparities between the practices of institutions but also at making their application possible within places of detention that do not yet use them. The note contains a definition of the transgressive behaviours in question (limitative list) and the nature of the “measures of internal order” likely to provide an appropriate response thereto (limitative list also), while underlining the fact that suspension of educational and professional training activities comes under the sole competence of the head of education, who decides according to the specific rules of the national education system. Finally, the note makes it possible to establish the procedures for implementation of “measures of internal order” (prior interview with the minor, maximum duration of 24 hours, no permanent forfeitures, prohibition of combination with disciplinary measures) as well as the traceability of these measures: nature of information to be recorded, recommended media (CEL module of the GIDE) The principles laid down in this note make it possible to provide rapid responses to transgressions committed by minors in custody, while continuing to tailor sanctions to individuals and adapt them to the seriousness of the acts committed. 1.2 Maintenance of family relations for imprisoned couples Request for application of the provisions of ordinary law (articles R.57-8-8 and R.57-8-10 of the code of criminal procedure) for couples imprisoned within the same institution, who wish to obtain internal or family visiting rooms. On 11th May 2012 the Contrôleur général referred the matter of difficulties encountered by couples imprisoned within the same institution to the director of the prisons administration department, in order to inform the latter thereof and assert the right of such couples to the maintenance of their family relations. It appeared that certain directors of institutions considered the obtainment of internal visiting permits to be a measure of internal order, subject to the director’s discretion, rather than a right whose refusal has to be justified (articles 35 and 36 of the prisons act of 24 th November 2009). In response to the matter taken up by the Contrôleur général, on 26th June 2012 the director of the prisons administration department confirmed that “in the absence of specific provisions for these situations, the general provisions concerning visiting permits shall be f ound to be applicable”. This interpretation of the regulations should be widely disseminated among all directors of institutions in order to truly bring an end to the difficulties encountered by persons in couples within the same institution. The Contrôleur général will be vigilant on this point in the future. 1.3 Prisoners’ Voting Rights Request for implementation of the possibility for prison visitors to be appointed as proxies for prisoners in the proxy forms issued for the various national and local elections. The Contrôleur général referred this point to the Director of the Prisons Administration Department on 1st February 2012. On 13th April 2012 the latter replied that not only does article D.221 of the code of criminal procedure allow members of associations working in prisons to be proxies but, moreover, proxy forms are to be drafted by the prisoners themselves, without any 81