such that the recommendations for which another directorate was responsible were not addressed. Concerning the prison administration, after initial opposition to the very principle of the exercise, direct talks with the Minister of Justice's office enabled the CGLPL to finally obtain official (if late) responses to its recommendations; the contents of some of these nevertheless showed a lack of proper supervision of the measures advocated. These difficulties are a clear sign that, although the authorities have made sure they are able to provide short-term responses to each of the documents they receive from the CGLPL, they do not have permanent means of monitoring the implementation of recommendations to which they respond. There is thus the risk that the CGLPL's requests and the responses it receives remain no more than rhetorical, with little impact on what happens in reality, especially as regards action plans. Supervision of the recommendations has also revealed the lack of cross-government dialogue concerning the management of people deprived of liberty and, at the very least, the Government's relations with the CGLPL. Indeed, it is not uncommon (as you will be able to see in the detailed appendix) for two ministers to give different – even contradictory – responses to the same recommendation. These differences, perhaps trivial in institutional relations, can lead to impasses when attempts are made to get properly to grips with these subjects; the roots of some very pressing problems at present can be traced back to this very situation: the medical treatment of prisoners or the organisation of judicial transfers being the main ones. This all means that, beyond simply the responses that each administration submits over time to the CGLPL in reaction to its opinions and recommendations, it seems preferable for an official supervisory procedure to be set up within each ministry. Especially for recommendations that the CGLPL makes in a document that does not call for a formal response from each minister: its annual report, although submitted to the President of the Republic and Parliament pursuant to a legal requirement, has, in practice, also been sent to each minister concerned since 201 5. The CGLPL believes that the respect in practice of the fundamental rights of people deprived of liberty implies that the Government closely monitor the measures taken in response to the recommendations it receives and be able to report on this subject to the national representation, international bodies in which France is involved and, finally, the public. The CGLPL recommends setting up, within each ministry concerned, official supervision of the action taken subsequent to its recommendations, including those expressed in the institution's annual reports, clearly identifying the recommendations upon which the Government does not intend to act. The summary presented in the pages that follow therefore stems from exchanges that have taken place throughout 2016 between the Government and CGLPL. Based on the information to hand, it presents the necessary review for long-term supervision. All of the guidelines the ministries were consulted about were summarised so as to end up with just a limited number of recommendations for each theme, all in keeping with the CGLPL's most recent doctrine. A summary of the Government's reply when this was forthcoming follows each of these recommendations. Lastly, the CGLPL expresses its position as regards the reply. When ther e is no reply on the part of the Government, the CGLPL upholds the position it initially expressed. In the future, a long-term procedure will be put in place to ensure annual supervision of the CGLPL's recommendations. Ever year, an updated review of the recommendations will be carried out on the basis of the assessment in the previous year's annual report, rounded off by new recommendations on the part of the CGLPL. This document will be decreed on the previous 31 July. Each ministry concerned will be asked to express its views of this updated review, still within the three-month timeframe, and still with a distinction drawn between the recommendations it 51