certificate attesting that the computer is in proper working order is then signed by the prisoner, which is placed in their personal IT dossier. The CLSI is faced with practices that differ from one prison to another as far as authorisation for placing computer hardware among prisoners’ stored property is concerned and with regard to the storage capacities of internal hard disks. In this regard, complaints have been brought to the CLSI’s intention, as shown by certain written applications appearing in the personal IT dossiers. In accordance with the terms of the assessment of 20 th June 2011 concerning access to IT facilities for persons in custody, the CGLPL emphasises the prejudice caused by the considerable differences in the way that provisions concerning the use of IT facilities in prison are applied from one place of imprisonment to another and recalls that limitation of the storage capacity of hard disks cannot be justified with regard to the maintenance of order and security. The Contrôleur général des lieux de privation de liberté recommends that a specific list should be drawn up of computer hardware that is to be placed among prisoners’ stored property. When prisoners are released, their computer hardware is inspected and the personal data is deleted. The equipment is taken by the CLSI one or two days before the date of release, in order to carry out this inspection, which may take up to a day, according to the quantity of data present on the hard disk of the computer. The CGLPL recommends that prisoners who own computers should be able to keep their personal data when they are released. When prisoners are transferred, checks are once again made in the person’s presence in order to confirm that their equipment is in proper working order, before they are sent to the new institution. In addition to general searches, the CLSI also carries out unannounced inspections of computers in cells and carries out checks twice a year on the IT facilities accessible to the inmate population, including about forty computers dedicated to educational activities and about twenty placed in the workshops. In particular, these checks include verification that the seals are intact. The CLSI is also in charge of the inspection of around 120 computers. However, the inquirers were informed that the IT room had been closed for six months due to the discovery of signs of connection of USB keys at the time of a search of the computers and of a few Internet connections. The CGLPL requests the reopening of the IT room as quickly as possible in order to allow prisoners who do not own computers to have the benefit of access to IT facilities. The general IT search conducted last January required the presence of a team of six officers from the IT department of the DISP of … for three weeks. The whole of the computers present in the detention centre were searched; signs of USB keys and connection to Internet were discovered in about ten of them. Interviews were conducted by the head of the IT unit of the DISP and the head of the detention centre with the owners of the computers concerned, in order to identify the possessors of these storage tools. According to the testimonies collected by the inquirers, it appears that certain prisoners were able to keep the whole of the data contained on their hard disks, in exchange for disclosure of the identity of the owners of USB keys. Threats of withdrawal of computer hardware and additional sentences were also apparently used for this purpose. However, the inquirers were not in a position to be able to confirm the truthfulness of such declarations. In any case, illicit data was deleted, after obtainment of written agreement from the persons concerned, in accordance with the DAP circular of 13 th October 2009 concerning access to IT facilities for persons in custody. Examination of the dossiers of the IT search shows that the nature of the files deleted is not specified in authorisations for deletion of data contained in internal hard disks of computers. Thus, personal documents, music (of which the originals were among the prisoner’s stored property) and training software such as the Encarta encyclopedia were apparently deleted. Similarly, it appears that artistic creations prepared with a view to shows put on for prisoners – in liaison with the prison rehabilitation and probation department – were deleted. 98