Practical means of expression may be given to the accommodated adolescents in the form of periodical common meetings with staff, and tutors in particular. Collective life and education in speaking and listening may be thereby consolidated. The institution should be able to appropriately assess the results of its action. To this end, it should be possible to inform them of what happens to children after their accommodation thereof, insofar as, after the CEF, they still come under measures of education and deprivation of liberty. To this end, it needs to be possible for the file mentioned under article 5-2 of the statutory instrument (ordonnance) of 2nd February 1945, to be consulted by the persons it has appointed for this purpose, under the control of the competent juvenile court judge. On these necessary conditions it will be possible to make the provision of good educational chances to the children catered for and acceptable conditions of work for staff – as is already the case in some CEFs – the general situation within young offenders’ institutions as a whole. 2.4 Penal Institutions Any observations that the Contrôle Général may have made in the reports concerning its inspections of penal institutions, are given in the chapter below concerning assessment of the Prisons Act, to which the reader should refer. 2.5 Mental Health Institutions 2.5.1 The development of the law In its report for 201263, the Contrôle Général had recalled the important change marked by the Act of 5th July 2011, likely to consolidate the rights pertaining to patients hospitalised without their consent, in particular by means of a hearing before the liberty and custody judge, at the latest fifteen days after their admission to hospital. The Constitutional Council of France, by means of its ruling no. 2012-235 QPC of 20th April 201264 clarified a point, with regard to the non-coercive nature of treatment programmes outside of hospital, and censured two of the provisions of the Act of 2011. The first of these concerned the possibility for judges, in view of their rulings, to apply to the prefect for committal to full hospitalisation of persons appearing before them: the Council found that the procedure was not surrounded by adequate guarantees. The second, concerning persons judged not to be criminally responsible for their actions or having stayed in units for difficult psychiatric patients (UMD), led the Constitutional Council to consider that the definition of the latter, in the absence of more specific guarantees with regard to admission to UMDs, had insufficiently justified consequences for such persons. The ruling obliged the legislature to revise the Act of 5th July 2011, before the deadline of 1st October 2013 fixed by the Constitutional Council. Parliament then took initiative in this field by commencing work on a bill aimed at putting right the unconstitutional points thus identified. 63 64 P. 69 et seq. Journal Officiel of 21st April. 58