The inquirers examined two identical but contradictory order forms, completed by the same detainee for the purchase of a speaker system on 4th July 2011, but apparently signed at different dates: one implied approval of the purchase whereas the other contained the crossed out reference indicating refusal of the order. Finally, an order form dated 4 th September 2011 and completed by another person authorised the purchase of the same product. The CGLPL recommends that clear and precise information should be given to explain the real grounds on which the prison administration cannot grant applications for purchase of computer hardware from Pearl. The IT consumables that prisoners may purchase from this catalogue (ink cartridges, reams of paper etc.) should also be listed in order to avoid any dispute or unequal treatment. The inquirers were able to consult the orders placed with the supplier Z Informatique by the IT department for the year 2011: - January 2011: twenty-one items without prices being specified; - February 2011: sixteen items for total amount of 934 euros; - March 2011: twenty-five items for total amount of 2,718 euros; - April 2011: thirteen items for total amount of 2,215 euros; - May 2011: no order forms; - June 2011: nineteen items for total amount of 1,559 euros; - July 2011: ten items for total amount of 499 euros; - August 2011: no order forms; - September 2011: nineteen items for total amount of 3,528 euros; - October 2011: twenty-two items for total amount of 2,758 euros; - November 2011: no order forms; December 2011: twenty-six items without prices being specified For the year 2011, seventeen computers were purchased by prisoners. According to the abovementioned information, the total amount of orders placed with Z Informatique for the year 2011 amounts to 14,211 euros. Control of computer hardware The DISP of … recommends that two searches should be conducted upon the whole of the computers every year. The CLSI informed the inquirers that, apart from searches conducted on arrival and departure from the institution, the computers as a whole are in practice analysed at least once a year. At 11th January 2012, out of a total of sixty-three computers, the hardware control follow-up document for persons in custody indeed shows that the whole of the computers has been controlled at least once a year, for the last three years. Excluding search operations carried out on arrival or attributable to recent purchases of computers in the detention centre, it appears that fourteen computers were controlled three times in the same year and thirty-six of them twice in the same year. This document also lists the seal numbers and passwords of computers. Two computers were seized within the framework of these controls: one had been handed over to the Interregional Department following its seizure on 17th December 2011 and the other was placed in storage, awaiting repair following its seizure on 6th May 2011. It appears regrettable that no search reports are included in the personal IT dossiers, nor any certificates attesting that computers are in proper working order, nor any authorisations of deletion of data. The CGLPL recommends the centralisation of the whole of these documents within the personal IT dossiers of prisoners who own computer hardware. The CLSI physically and virtually controls computer hardware at the time of arrivals within the institution, before placing new seals upon it. He draws up search reports, diagnoses and inventories of new arrivals’ computer hardware. After going to wing for new arrivals, the persons are called to the property office in order to reboot their equipment in the CLSI’s presence. A 97