This type of initiative (access to Internet and to the press) would be worth extending to all institutions catering for minors; it should be combined with educational initiatives likely to awaken a critical mind in the face of the media and, more generally, promote access to legal information and advice and citizenship. More generally, knowledge of one’s rights is indisputably one of the essential tools for autonomy and cannot be reduced, as is too often the case, to the handing over of the internal rules and regulations and the booklet for new arrivals. Putting this principle into practice is far from simple with young people more ready to demand their rights than to fulfil their duties; it constitutes an educational challenge that is rarely taken up. The value of initiatives working in this direction should therefore be appreciated, such as the organisation of conferences providing access to legal information and advice within one EPM, in liaison with the local Bar. Supervised access to personal files could also be promoted in favour of young persons, as a tool for understanding their personal history as much as their rights; unfortunately, in one CEF, – which had the merit of including access to personal files among minors’ rights –, the inspectors ascertained that this right was limited to the administrative part… which considerably reduced its significance. The right to the assistance of a lawyer is included in the internal rules and regulations of EPMs and minors are informed thereof; the local Bar roll of counsels entitled to practice is in general displayed in the units, which is not enough to facilitate young persons’ access to their lawyer, when the latter is a member of another Bar (which is frequently the case, in view of the young people’s geographical origin). This information should therefore be provided on an individual basis in a formal manner. This provision of information is in general less formalised in CEFs (the Bar roll is not displayed), where it is considered that tutors will pass on young persons’ applications. This method does not appear likely to encourage autonomy. The inspectors ascertained that access to lawyers was limited to the moments immediately preceding hearings. It is certain that the escort conditions (escort or educational presence) do not promote the confidentiality of interviews, unless the lawyers express their expectations in this regard. In both types of institution, and especially in CEFs, the inspectors noted that young people were sometimes dissuaded from making applications to the judge; yet, while it is desirable for tutors to support young people in making such applications, and to inform them of the opinions that they intend to give in this regard, they should not stand in their way. Minors should therefore have all useful elements at their disposal for this purpose; the information should be issued in a systematic and formalised manner (handing over of a document including the court contact details). Finally, it should be noted that in both types of institution minors, and even tutors, appear to be unaware of the right of appeal pertaining to minors in criminal matters. The CGLPL recommends the putting in place of means of access to information (the media) and, more particularly, access to legal information and advice. Each young person should be placed in a position to be able to make contact with the lawyer of their choice, as well as with the member of the national legal service in charge of their files. Unless it is contrary to their best interests, they should be able to have the benefit of supervised access to their files. The CGLPL also recommends consolidation of the legal training of the teams. 114