provision of the DAP circular of 13th October 2009 is recalled in a note from the Interregional Department of Prison Services of … dated 6th August 2010. In the absence of valid grounds pertaining to the security of the institution, the CGLPL recommends the putting in place of a procedure to authorise and supervise gifts of computer hardware between prisoners, subject to control by the CLSI and deletion of data. Suppliers At the detention centre of …, one single supplier of computer hardware is approved by the Interregional Department of Prison Services: Z Informatique, a local company. An agreement was signed between the institution, the said company and the Interregional Department in 2009. However, at the time of the inspection, the inquirers were able to point out that the document was not dated. In response they were informed that the elaboration of a new agreement was in course, for the year 2012. Exchanges between the CLSI and Z Informatique principally take place by means of e-mail. It should be noted that the CLSI goes to the shop from time to time in order to apply warranties on hardware and check the stock. The inquirers were informed that neither the institution nor the supplier has the benefit of a profit margin. A second supplier of computer hardware is currently being sought. Verification of criminal records among the staff of one of the companies identified did not make it possible to follow-up the procedure. The prisons administration department circular of 13th October 2009 concerning access to IT facilities for persons in custody specifies that “in order to guarantee the homogeneousness of IT facilities, offer the best conditions of purchase and above all ensure application of the security rules on this issue, one or several binding agreements may be drawn up between prisons and local, regional and national direct or mail order selling suppliers of computer hardware, specifying the terms of acquisition of this hardware by prisoners”. A second company, Pearl, whose catalogue is available to prisoners (in this instance on each floor of the detention centre for reference consultation or borrowing), also offers computer hardware. However, this company is not considered to be a supplier – under the terms of the DAP circular of 13th October 2009 - since, according to the information passed on to the inquirers, it had refused to sign the agreement or even supply a list of equipment authorised by the aforementioned circular. Thus, prisoners do not have the possibility of buying computer hardware from this company, although the purchase of “small consumables” is apparently tolerated by the institution. According to the information provided to the inquirers, the latter are above all peripherals and consumables that do not pose any difficulties in terms of security, for example mice, diskettes, paper and ink cartridges. The Pearl Company was contacted by telephone in order to find out its reasons for refusing to formalise the existing partnership with the detention centre. It emerged from this exchange that the company had not made any refusal. The inquirers are not therefore in a position to be able to establish the real reason that no agreement has been signed, in view of the contradictory nature of the evidence. The CGLPL recalls the terms of the assessment of 20 th June 2001 concerning access to IT facilities for persons in custody, according to which prisoners should be free to purchase the necessary equipment from any supplier whose company name is clearly identified, by mail order or online, and subject to prior control by the administration for the sole purpose of verifying that the chosen equipment meets the conditions mentioned under point 8 of the aforementioned assessment193. 193 Point 8: “Prisoners should be able to have the benefit of a share of computers in their cells that corresponds to their needs, as well as the data storage capacities that they consider useful, and finally of any peripheral and any so-called “external” IT programme (software etc.), as long as – and on the sole condition – that they compromise neither their rehabilitation, nor proper order within the institution, nor the interests of victims, and that the place of detention possesses the necessary electrical installations and space”. 95