framework of implementation of the Act of 12 th April 2000. When the Contrôleur général took this matter up with the director of the institution, the latter pointed out that the computer had indeed been withdrawn according to this procedure, since the person had used it in a manner not provided for under the law, which presupposes that the computers are solely used for purposes of rehabilitation (paragraph 2 of article D. 449-1). Yet paragraph 3 of this same article specifies, on the contrary, that withdrawals pursuant to article 24 of the Act of 12 th April 2000 can only be carried out within the framework of impossibility of verification of the appliance or as order and security measures. The withdrawal was therefore unlawful with regard to these texts, whereas withdrawal on disciplinary grounds could have been applied in all validity. In certain cases, the choice of using article 24, which is restrictive and sometimes unlawfully used, can resemble a measure of a disciplinary nature. Other testimonies collected by the Contrôleur général mention cases of withholding of letters sent to third persons – in particular in cases where insults and threats against prison staff are mentioned – carried out outside of the provisions of article 24 of the Act of 12 th April 2000. Nevertheless, it should be recalled that the circular of 9 th May 2003 concerning application of article 24 of the Act of 12th April 2000 for the prisons administration explicitly mentions the obligation to make use of such inter partes proceedings when mail is prohibited and withheld. Moreover, in the case cited as an example, the DISP had declared the withdrawal decision to be invalid, on the grounds that it had not complied with the terms of article 24. 2.2.8 Restoration of Former Privileges and Compensation The issue of restoration of former privileges arises in particular when unfavourable temporary administrative measures taken against prisoners are not subsequently confirmed by the disciplinary committee, or when disciplinary measures are set aside after remedy. Indeed, the Contrôleur général has ascertained on numerous occasions that the quashing of such sanctions or measures has not led to the reestablishment of former rights and privileges (sentence reduction credits, additional sentence reductions etc.). In their letters, certain persons thus reported order and security measures involving transfers, which had been enforced when the incidents that caused them had been dropped without proceedings or had led to acquittal. Nevertheless, in spite of their requests, these persons were unable to obtain reassignment to their institutions of origin. Similarly, certain persons reported their dismissal from employment as a temporary administrative measure before being acquitted by the disciplinary committee, without for all that being able to return to their former professional positions. Certain others mentioned placement under the closed regime due to incidents that were nevertheless dropped without proceedings. Finally, others reported having made requests of compensation in vain for unjustified sanctions, whether with regard to the duration of placement in the punishment wing pending inquiry and hearing following incidents for which they were acquitted, loss of employment following dismissals pronounced as temporary measures or loss of earnings caused by the use of one procedure rather than another, within the framework of dismissals pending inquiries and hearings etc. It emerges from these numerous letters received by the Contrôleur général that once decisions withdrawing remission credits, denying additional remission and refusing reduced sentencing and permission to go out have been delivered by judges responsible for the execution of sentences (JAP), 135