An “undertaking to comply with the rules concerning prisoners’ access to IT facilities” should also be signed by the prisoner, setting out the obligations and sanctions and the legal framework for these rules. Among the fifty-eight dossiers consulted as a whole, eleven (19%) did not contain any written undertaking. Out of the forty-seven written undertakings present, only two were dated and one had not been signed. It would be desirable to date the whole of the documents signed by prisoners, and undertakings to comply with the rules in particular, in order to make it possible to prove that prisoners have been informed of the prohibitions linked to the use of computers, from the moment that the latter are handed over to their owners. Following transfers or purchases, certificates attesting that computers are in proper working order are systematically drawn up at the time of their receipt, after their central processing units have been opened. This should also be signed by the owners of the equipment, following the completion of the physical search. Among the fifty-eight dossiers consulted, fortyfive certificates (78%) were present, but seven of them had not been signed. The dossier may also contain the IT data record, which gives the dates of inventory and handover of equipment, of the opening of the IT dossier, of the undertaking to comply with the rules concerning prisoners’ access to IT facilities and of the certificate attesting that the computer was in proper working order after the CLSI checks, at the time of arrival in the institution. This document also gives the number of the seal placed upon the hardware and the findings recorded after it had been searched. It is stamped by the director of the institution. Out of the fifty-eight files consulted, it was only possible to find nineteen data records (33%). Since the general search conducted in the month of January last, organised by the DISP of …, the version of the circular of 13th October 2009 that is available to the general public, concerning access to IT facilities for persons in custody, is handed over to prisoners, who are asked to sign an acknowledgement of receipt thereof. However, no documents concerning issue of the circular were found in the dossiers consulted as a whole. However, it was specified that this circular had been issued to all owners of computers when hardware was withdrawn during the general search. Testimonies gathered from prisoners confirmed their receipt of the circulars. The CGLPL is pleased with the practice of placing the DAP circular of 13 th October 2009 at the disposal of owners of computer hardware, which enables real access to the regulations that apply to them. He recommends that this practice should be continued for prisoners who become owners of computers in the future and brought into general use for prisons as a whole. The IT dossiers also contain copies of invoices proving ownership of equipment acquired in detention. Out of the fifty-eight dossiers consulted, forty-four (76%) contained invoices for equipment. Moreover the inquirers ascertained that personal IT dossiers are relatively rarely exchanged between prisons. Thus, out of the twenty-eight dossiers concerning persons who acquired their equipment in previous institutions, only twelve (43%) had initial inventories or invoices proving prior purchases. When equipment is purchased within the detention centre copies of the invoices are handed over to the persons concerned; when personal IT dossiers are not transferred between institutions, it is difficult to prove the market value of certain pieces of equipment in scenarios where applications for indemnification might be envisaged, because of loss or damage to the said equipment. The inquirers were informed that it is difficult to obtain previously established personal IT dossiers and that when prisoners who own computers are transferred to other prisons, the whole of their personal IT dossiers are sent to the new institutions receiving them. The CGLPL recommends that in case of transfer of prisoners who own computers, the institutions from which they depart should systematically send their personal IT dossiers to the institutions receiving them. As a minimum, initial inventories and certificates attesting proper working order of equipment, as well as copies of invoices should be passed on. Prisoners are not authorised to have computer hardware sent out of prison during their detention. Exchanges and gifts of computer hardware between prisoners are prohibited. This 94