- a record of any personal belongings confiscated from people placed in custody must be made in two stages: when confiscated and when returned; - this record must be kept and available for checking; - confiscated items must be stored in conditions that prevent indiscretion, theft and destruction; - spectacles and bras must not be confiscated systematically, but according to the risks arising out of the way the person concerned is behaving; - when they are confiscated, such items must be returned at each hearing and when the person appears before the judicial authority. In 2016 the CGLPL did not visit a single gendarme or police unit where all of these recommendations had been acted upon. In particular, it was observed that: measures that should only be applied under exceptional circumstances (handcuffing or confiscation of bras and spectacles) were systematic; no records were kept of confiscated items; these records were destroyed when the items were returned; spectacles and bras were not returned during hearings and sometimes even when the person appeared before the judicial authority; confiscated items were stored in open cupboards, etc. Depending on the facility, the reasons given for carrying out such measures are variable: "that's the way it's always been done"; "it's the rules"; "The Senior law enforcement officer's in charge if there's an incident"; "there isn't any register to be filled in"; "we don' t have the means"; etc. It is also significant to note that, even though there are exceptions to be found everywhere to the application of the principles recommended by the CGLPL, they are not always the same, such that what is dangerous in one place is not in another, and vice versa. These findings mean that there is no legal basis for measures that restrict rights and which are perceived as very harsh and unfair by the people they are taken against. It is therefore of particular importance that clear inst ructions be given to gendarme and police services to determine the doctrine in this respect and to guarantee this is enforced. As the CGLPL has pointed out on several occasions, most recently in its 2015 annual report, easing the restrictions placed on people deprived of liberty is at odds with maintaining an accountability-based system as regards gendarmes and police officers, which binds them to an obligation for results where there should be "zero incidents". This system must be replaced by a simple requirement to take reasonable measures in light of the circumstances and a measured assessment of the risks. Otherwise, officers are understandably reluctant to stop taking excessive security measures, which they see as the only way of protecting their personal responsibility. It is necessary to define, and educate gendarmes and police officers in, a clear and balanced doctrine on the use of security measures applied as regards people in custody and to place these officers under an accountability system that is compatible with enforcement of this doctrine on a measured and individualised basis. 35