awarding of a negative grade to the minor, whose behaviour is assessed on a daily basis. This grading leads to the attribution of levels, which result in bonuses or, on the contrary, automatic forfeiture of certain facilities: weekly money allowance, telephone calls, MP3, radio-alarm clocks, ironing and – a fact which constitutes a violation of minors’ fundamental rights – restrictions concerning the possibility of undertaking external training or the terms of family visits etc. Contrary to the previous example, in this case the approach taken to minors appears merely to consist of grading them. This “behaviourist” approach reduces minors to their behaviour and leaves little room for their individuality and personal issues to be taken into account. The automatic nature of sanctions limits the space available for dialogue between adults and the minor. Moreover, in a few CEFs, certain disciplinary sanctions violate minors’ fundamental rights. This is the case of sanctions that consist of restricting contact between young persons and their families: limitation of telephone calls, withdrawal of weekends outside the institution and visits. Similarly, confinement in a room – as opposed to temporary exclusion, accompanied by an adult, in order to calm down – as well as collective sanctions (closing of a television room for fifteen days), are practices which cannot be tolerated. Whether sanctions take the form of making up for breaches or the withdrawal of privileges, they should not violate minors’ fundamental rights. As recommended by the Havana Rules 199, restrictions or prohibition of contact with families, for whatever reason, should be excluded from disciplinary measures. Sanctions should therefore be clearly defined in order to ensure fairness towards minors and consistency between adults. Professionals should be able to refer to a scale of sanctions for guidance, while being able to adapt them to the individual requirements of the minor in question. And all disciplinary measures should be subject to the possibility of remedy on the part of the young person. Each CEF should have internal rules and regulations and a booklet for new arrivals, setting out their rights and obligations, in a manner that is clear and accessible to minors (Cf. section 3 access to defence rights). Collective sanctions and confinement of minors for disciplinary reasons should be prohibited. The latter practice is harmful and dangerous for the person concerned who, in their isolation, may be tempted to commit serious acts. Moreover, the circular of 11th December 2006200 prohibits the use of tobacco in institutions accommodating minors remanded in custody. In reality, the majority of CEFs turn a blind eye to the use of tobacco without, for all that, offering specialised care for the purposes of progressively giving up the smoking habit. This tolerance presents “secondary advantages” from the point of view of the institutions: the management of tobacco is in this case closely associated with discipline. Thus in one CEF inspected in June 2012, restriction of the daily number of cigarettes (which was already limited to six per day) was established as a sanction and was, in reality, the most commonly applied sanction. Apart from empirical disciplinary practices and legal uncertainties, in one CEF inspected in June 2012 it was ascertained that behaviours constituting mistreatment on the part of adults – mild assaults, blows on the nape of the neck, pulling of ears, jabbing keys in minors’ ribs, various acts of brutality – were used as sanctions against minors. These behaviours, which signal a total absence of professionalism, are unacceptable in all cases, and all the more so within the framework of educational duties. Any sanction should recall the primacy of the law and not be the expression of brutal domination on the part of adults. 199 Cf. §. IV-L paragraph 67 of United Nations resolution 45/113 for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty adopted in December 1990. 200 Circular JUSA 600415C. 110