With regard to measures of a disciplinary nature, it should be pointed out that, contrary to the situation within prisons, detainees do not have any possible remedy against such exclusion decisions. Furthermore, although, previous to the act of 16 th July 2011, case law allowed cases to be referred to the liberty and custody judge within a deadline of five days, it has not yet become stable in this respect. 1.3 Discipline in Young Offenders’ Institutions: a Heterogeneous Construction In CEFs, contraventions committed by minors may be of three types. On the one hand contraventions considered serious and giving rise to a criminal complaint – assaults on staff, violence and more generally any act that may be criminally classified. In virtually all CEFs, protocols have been established between the institution and the State Prosecutor’s Office, providing for immediate judicial responses to such offences, in order to avoid the development of a sense of impunity. On the other hand, contraventions described as significant incidents, because they constitute violations of obligations of judicial supervision or probation orders, to which minors are subject. This type of contravention gives rise to notification of the judge in charge of the case, who may revoke the measure, resulting in imprisonment of the minor. The statement of objectives (worked out by the Minister of Justice at the time of creation of the CEFs) mentions the handling of these significant incidents; Finally, less serious breaches, which are dealt with internally: incivilities, ver bal assault, damage to property, insulting behaviour, any behaviour harming the internal order of the CEF and which calls for a response. The latter category is not subject to any regulatory control or recommendation in the statement of objectives. However, internal management of contraventions by minors applies to their daily lives. Insofar as it regulates relations within communities inside institutions, discipline, and its corollary of sanctions, constitutes one of the fundamental aspects of the “containing” framework that is supposed to characterise CEFs and their educational role. Moreover, in the absence of a legal basis and instructions within the statement of objectives, each public or associative CEF has therefore elaborated measures for the punishment of breaches of their rules and regulations by means of successive experiments. The variety of disciplinary systems and methods of implementation corresponds to the great diversity of objectives within institutions, not to say their individual histories and the difficulties that they have gone through. There are as many different ways of managing discipline as there are CEFs. However, two major trends appear to be discernible. Indeed, in the majority of CEFs sanctions are neither defined in the rules and regulations, nor in the booklet for new arrivals. The arguments justifying this vagueness make reference to the need for individualisation of sanctions according to the personality of the minor and the desire to avoid punishments having an automatic character, any “scale of sanctions” being indiscriminately considered equivalent to a “behaviourist” idea of discipline. In these institutions, the inspectors ascertained that although young people end up with an overall knowledge the sanctions incurred, the absence of formalisation and, therefore, the lack of clarity of the disciplinary regime gives rise to a feeling of arbitrariness and injustice. 108