equipment. A summary of the rules and regulations is included with this document in order to inform the person of the regulations concerning authorised equipment and use thereof. It thus sets out the conditions of purchase, licit technologies, prohibitions linked to data media, procedures for control of computer hardware and content, the sealing of cases, procedures for searches in the course of detention and at the time of release, acquisition of IT publications and removal of any items attached to the latter, as well as the legal framework for the above provisions. At the time of the inquiry, the institution had recently undergone a search organised by the Interregional Department of Prison Services (DISP) of … at ministerial request in January 2012. Some of the personal IT dossiers, which had been consulted by the teams of the DISP of …, were not present in the filing cabinets provided for this purpose. Indeed, a certain number of personal dossiers were still retained in the search files made up by the interregional department and certain documents had been removed from personal dossiers. Subject to the exception of the documents retained by the interregional department within the framework of the Ministerial search, it is absolutely essential that personal IT dossiers be kept up to date. For a total of sixty-four computers possessed by prisoners at the time of the inquiry, the inquirers were able to collect and consult fifty-eight (91%) of the IT dossiers. Out of this sample, it appears that the application form for acquisition or use was absent from nine (16%) of them. The forty-nine forms present included twenty-one (43%) applications for acquisition and twentysix (53%) applications for use, while two (4%) did not give any information making it possible to determine the origin of the application. In the light of the other documents present in the personal IT dossiers, it appears that out of the nine dossiers in which the forms were absent, one originated from an application for acquisition, three from applications for use and five remain unknown. The possession of computers has to be justified with a view to plans for training or rehabilitation (work, professional training, education or leisure activities), in application of article D.449-1 of the code of criminal procedure. The inquirers were able to ascertain that the reasons for applications were principally the desire to follow training courses in IT and various other subjects (twenty-three applications) and the fact of having acquired equipment in previous institutions (twenty-one applications); while seven applications were unexplained. The CGLPL recommends that the possibility of acquiring computers by prisoners should not be subject to any particular justification. The inquirers were informed that, in general, applications for acquisition or use are not refused. A single case was encountered, due to the profile of the applicant, who had been convicted for acts of computer hacking. The inquirers were also able to ascertain that one application for acquisition had been granted on the condition of enrolment on an IT course. An enrolment certificate dated June 2010 was included in the dossier and acquisition of the computer had been allowed in October of the same year. In the absence of dates on acquisition application forms, it is not possible to determine the average time required for the issuing of responses, on the part of the authorities concerned (RLE, CPU and the management of the detention centre), to applications submitted by prisoners. The CGLPL recommends that dates of signature of documents should be systematically given in order to allow traceability of the time elapsed between initial applications and supply of equipment, thus providing information on the course of events. According to the procedure laid down within the institution, applications for acquisition or use of computer hardware made by prisoners have to be stamped by the single multidisciplinary committee (CPU) and the director. The opinion of the Local Teaching Manager (RLE) may also be requested. Out of the forty-nine applications consulted, seven mention approval on the part of the RLE (14%), six on the part of the CPU (12%) and twenty-eight from the director of the institution (57%). Finally, nine (18%) applications had not been stamped and only three (6%) had received approval from all of the authorities (RLE, CPU and the director). The CGLPL recommends that approval on the part of the CPU should be systematically established by means of a stamp placed upon applications for acquisition or use of computer hardware, when the situation of the person concerned is examined within this framework. 93