On a final note, the busiest and most overwhelmed services paradoxically seem to be subject to the least amount of scrutiny – both on the part of supervisors and the judicial authority. Registers are generally poorly kept and supervisors and the judicial authority alike seldom sign off on procedures. It is not until an incident actually occurs that a series of inspections are carried out, which then lead to effective corrective measures. The CGLPL observed one such situation in a police service where an incident arising in 2014 had given rise to a series of effective measures and interventions. The CGLPL therefore believes that special attention must be paid to the working conditions and equipment in the busiest police services – notably in the Parisian region. This calls for stringent supervisory and judicial oversight and subsequent action following any recommendations. The CGLPL recommends stringent supervisory and judicial oversight in the most inundated police services and monitoring of action taken following recommendations made during these inspections. 6.2 With no clear instructions, practices are disparate which can violate the fundamental rights of people deprived of liberty. 6.2.1 There is not always a clear distinction between the situation of foreigners held for their right of residence to be checked and that of people placed in custody. In several gendarme or police stations, the inspectors found there to be a certain confusion between the people brought into custody and foreigners held for their right of residence to be checked. This is particularly conveyed through the use of restraint means, confiscation of personal belongings mobile phones in particular – and the absence of any specific register. In a few rare cases, it was indicated that foreigners held for such reasons were "in custody just like the others". Usually it was not that the officers did not know these foreigners were in a different situation to people placed in custody, but that they dealt with them in the same way because they had not been given any specific instructions. At the inspectors' requests, they made do with explaining that they are aware the foreigners held have specific rights – not least regarding access to a telephone – and that they would of course return the mobile phones "if requested", but it seems that this simply never happens in reality. Best endeavours must be used to ensure that gendarmes and police officers responsible for foreigners held for their right of residence to be checked are aware of and apply the measures tailored to the situation of this category of people deprived of liberty. 6.2.2 Security measures continue to be applied without proper judgement, despite repeated requests from the CGLPL. Once again, the CGLPL's visits found that practices related to handcuffing, confiscation of personal belongings, spectacles and bras and handing out of documents notifying the measure and rights are not only disparate but above all disrespectful of the rights of people placed in custody. It is simply not acceptable that the recommendations that the CGLPL has made repeatedly since it was first set up are not always followed up. Let us recall here: - handcuffing must not be systematic, but practised according to the risks arising out of the way the person concerned is behaving; - a handcuffed person must be kept away from the public eye; 34