In the institutions inspected, the Contrôleur général has long observed that the practices of prefectures differ markedly with regard the renewal of residence permits for persons in custody. It appears that certain decentralised administrations have reservations with regard to the very principle of issuing permits to imprisoned persons and consider that they should await the end of the term of imprisonment in order to deal with such applications. However, refusal of renewal renders access to reduced sentencing measures practically impossible for residence permit applicants: it is therefore a source of discrimination in the enforcement of sentences. For this reason the Contrôleur général has put questions to the Minister of the Interior on several occasions with regard to these practices and the possibility of changes to them. He received a reply to the effect that a draft framework convention had been elaborated and validated by the ministerial authority. However, in spite of several reminders, at the time of writing this report, this framework convention has not been passed on to the Contrôleur général and does not appear to have come into force. The difficulties raised by the Contrôleur général in his letters therefore continue in a non-negligible number of prefectures. 4.5 The Use of Information Technology in Prison In his assessment of 20th June 2011 concerning access to information technology for persons in custody, the Contrôleur général emphasised that access to online IT facilities was all the more important for prisoners insofar as the latter are not at liberty to come and go. A large proportion of information coming from outside, useful in particular for the rehabilitation of prisoners on their release, is therefore only available by means of IT media. It must be admitted that use of IT in prison is still subject to such constraints that prisoners are deprived of a particularly useful tool providing access to information, communication and rehabilitation. As the Contrôleur général was able to ascertain during an on-site inquiry conducted in a prison in June 2012 (of which details are given in the following pages), methods of control of hardware may lead to the seizure of computers for long periods (several months) without the implementation of disciplinary proceedings or any possibility for prisoners to have their remarks taken into account under article 24 of the act of 12 th April 2000 concerning the rights of citizens in their relations with the administrations. The Contrôleur général also ascertained that neither reports on searches performed on computers nor authorisations or refusals with regard to the deletion of data were placed in prisoners’ personal IT dossiers, which prevents the traceability of control measures and their follow-up actions. More generally, the Contrôleur général once again ascertains that the ways in which provisions concerning information technology are applied continue to vary considerably from one institution to the next, to the great detriment of pri soners when they are transferred. In numerous letters received, prisoners report long-term deprival of their computers following changes of institution, without their understanding the reasons for the withholding of equipment that in some cases they had been using for a long time. Finally, the Contrôleur général also ascertains that the possibility of prisoners gaining access to IT facilities in shared areas does not make up for restrictions placed upon the use of IT in cells. In the institution within which the inquiry was carried out in June 2012, various difficulties of operation, and in particular the ascertainment of breaches of rules in the use of the computer hardware made available, provided justification for the closing of the IT room (the closure had been effective for two years at the date of the inquiry), without any plans to reopen it to date. In this case, the highly regrettable fact should be emphasised that the general restriction of access to IT facilities is based upon the inability of the administration, in view of its resources, to control the use made thereof. The same continues to apply to access to e-mail services in prisons as a whole. 90