Computer hardware is acquired by means of external purchases. For this purpose, prisoners have to fill in order forms and hand them over to the CLSI before the 5 th of each month. The supplier Z Informatique offers six models of computers that meet the criteria specified in the DAP Circular of 13 th October 2009 concerning access to IT facilities for persons in custody, for purchase prices of between 249 and 799 euros (PC Z Info 1 for a total of 249 euros, PC Z Info 2 for 295 euros, PC Z Info 3 for 429 euros, PC Z Info 4 for 459 euros, PC Z Info 5 for 659 euros and PC Z Info 6 for 799 euros). The Windows 7 Home Edition operating system is offered with this package for 119 euros and LCD screens come as an option (119 euros for a 19inch screen and 169 euros for a 22-inch screen). It should be noted that licences for the Windows 7 Home Edition operating system can be purchased on the market – in particular via online sales – for prices starting at 89.99 euros. The inquirers were informed that, in cases where prisoners want to purchase spare parts, requests for estimates are sent to the company in order to inform purchasers of the price charged. The latter then decide whether or not to confirm their orders. The accounts department then freezes the amount in the prisoner’s personal account. However, it was specified to the inquirers that prisoners must imperatively include the word “estimate” on their order forms, failing which the request is considered to be confirmation of the order. When the note “estimate” is not marked, the items are thus purchased without the prisoner first being informed of the price charged. This rule, which is apparently specified orally at the time of the initial interview, has never been taken up in any motion concerning the rules and regulations and has never been made formal by a memorandum to inmates within the institution. As a result, certain prisoners expressed incomprehension concerning purchases made without their agreement and without them having been able to receive prior notice of the price charged. The prisoners as a whole should be informed of the procedure for purchases of computer hardware – specifying the distinction between orders and estimates – by all useful means making it possible to bring the matter to their attention. Moreover, it emerges from examination of the order forms that certain prisoners, having sent purchase applications on the basis of the detailed descriptions and prices contained in the Pearl catalogue, apparently did not receive any reply specifying that they should lodge new applications with the CLSI. Thus, the hardware identified in the Pearl catalogue appears to have been automatically ordered from Z Informatique, at a higher price. In addition, according to the testimonies collected, it appears that the reasons given to prisoners for the impossibility of purchasing hardware from Pearl are unclear and subject to various different interpretations. Thus, some of them were informed that hardware from the catalogue was less reliable, less high-performance or not guaranteed. Finally, the inquirers were informed that certain prisoners had purchased peripherals from Pearl, whereas others found themselves obliged to buy them from Z Informatique. The following can be ascertained from examination of the Pearl order forms for the year 2011 and the first quarter of 2012: - purchase of HDMI cables was systematically authorised, with the exception of two order forms completed in September and October 2011, in which the necessity of applying to the CLSI is mentioned; - the purchase of keyboards was authorised for order forms completed in the months of April, May, June and July 2011, but was refused for orders placed from the month of October 2011 onwards; - it was possible to purchase mice until May 2011; subsequently order forms were refused on the grounds that they had to be ordered through the CLSI; - from October 2011 to February 2012, detainees no longer had the possibility of buying mouse mats via this company; an order form of March 2012 mentions the purchase of this consumable. The inquirers also found inconsistencies in the authorisations granted. Thus, on 27 th September 2011 a purchase of an HDMI cable was authorised via Pearl, whereas a similar request dated 28th September was refused on the grounds that they had to be ordered “by the intermediary of CLIs, not from Pearl”. 96