concerned. The educational role of CEFs means that these institutions must make sure, as mentioned in other annual reports, that they establish the necessary connections and that necessary formalities are accomplished (granting of rights) and useful agreements entered into. Awareness should be raised within state health insurance offices (CPAM) of measures placing minors in institutions. Many young offenders’ institutions do not provide enough activities and such activities as exist are composed of television, board games and sport (many sports instructors are nevertheless exemplary). In particular, initiatives need to be undertaken with regard to pre-apprenticeship work experience in companies – since the managers of companies engaged in the skilled trades show themselves to be ready and willing to cooperate at the local level – and in technical workshops within establishments, thanks to the interest that the supervisory staff (woodworkers etc.) take in their trade and the less off-putting nature of these occupations as compared with traditional school. Such activities require competent staff (who need to be found), as well as premises and equipment, and firm continuity in the management of the establishments, which may sometimes be lacking. Finally, as already mentioned in previous reports, relations between the establishments and the external institutional environment are often inadequate. “Steering committees” are of inconstant composition and meet irregularly. Relations with city councils and local authorities are very unevenly developed, with the exception of police force districts and gendarmeries. The only significant improvement in this respect is investment in the decentralised and centralised departments of the judicial youth protection service (direction de la protection judiciaire de la jeunesse), whose “audits” and inspections appear to be markedly increasing. However, their new programme with regard to CEFs, which was initially due for completion at the end of 2012, is still not known at the time of writing these lines. 2.3 Police Custody and Customs Detention Facilities 2.3.1 Background details The Act of 14th April 2011 reforming police custody, which provoked various reactions when it came into force, has now thus been applied for a full year in 2012, without giving rise to any major upheaval. Admittedly, some lawyers considered that the new rights thus instituted did not provide the persons concerned with all of the guarantees that might have been hoped for in terms of acknowledgement of defence rights and endowment with the necessary means. However, the Constitutional Council, to which matters were referred for preliminary rulings on questions of constitutionality by both the French Council of State 71 and the Court of Cassation72, found (with a single reservation concerning article 62 of the Code of criminal procedure) that the act voted did not violate any constitutional principle 73. It is true that it subsequently judged article 706-88-2 of the code of criminal procedure (providing for the possibility for members of the national legal service to restrict the choice of defence counsel available to persons placed in police custody for serious crimes and offences linked to terrorism) 71 rd rd 23 August 2011, no. 349 752, on the circular of 23 May 2011 from the Minister of Justice concerning the application of the Act. 72 th In four rulings of 6 September 2011, no. 11 – 90.068. 73 th 18 November 2011, no. 2011 – 191/194/195/196/197 – Priority preliminary ruling on constitutionality (QPC / question prioritaire de constitutionnalité). 38