In a response submitted to the Chief Inspector nine months after the request was made, the Paris Police Prefect confirmed that an identity check operation had indeed taken place at the place and time as described in the referral, at temperatures of around 35°C. The detainees had in deed been ushered into the courtyard of the DOPC where they remained "no more than a few hours" and where they were able to keep themselves hydrated. It was specified that the operations bearing on notification of rights, hearings and notification of deportation measures from national territory had taken place in a covered, enclosed area. The Prefect forwarded copies of the procedural documents concerning the 18 people in question, most of whom were detained for more than four hours under these conditions before they arrived at the Detention centre for illegal immigrants. The Chief Inspector recommended that all steps be taken to ensure acceptable detainment conditions for the detainees and a procedure for notifying them of measures in a manner that respects their rights. Questioned once again about the respect for confidentiality in terms of interviews with lawyers, the police prefect responded that instructions had been issued to the Paris Conurbation Neighbourhood Security Director to make sure that, under such circumstances, the rights of detainees would be respected – not least as regards the strict confidentiality of talks with their lawyers. With such operations currently occurring on a regular basis in Paris, the Chief Inspector is remaining extremely vigilant as to the application of these recommendations. 1.2 Respecting the privacy of people hospitalised without their consent The CGLPL was referred a case by a person hospitalised without consent, reporting that section 3 of the sick leave notification issued to him during his hospitalisation, for forwarding to his employer, mentioned not only the name of the physician, but also the institution in which he had been hospitalised. This situation appeared to violate the right to respect of privacy, one of the criteria of which is medical confidentiality, when this institution specialised in psychiatry, geriatrics and addictions. Referred the measures that could be taken to resolve the risk of intrusion on the privacy of people committed to psychiatric care institutions, the hospital management indicated that it had acknowledged the possible difficulties associated with mentioning the name of the institution – which was not obligatory, incidentally, for completing the form. It said that a discussion would shortly take place with Board members and/or the institution's medical commission (CME) with a view to changing this practice that violated patients' rights. This example is evidence of the many instances where the CGLPL's recommendations are received positively by institutions who are anxious to review their practices so as to improve respect of the rights of detainees they accommodate. 1.3 Access to visiting rooms for people fitted with a pacemaker The Chief Inspector was referred a case concerning difficulties accessing the visiting room for a prisoner's mother who was fitted with a pacemaker. It was explained that the management had denied her access to the institution despite the presentation of a medical certificate indicating that she was "fitted with an automatic pacemaker that contraindicated walking through metal detectors". The Chief Inspector has contacted the institution director for comments on this situation. In her letter, she set out the terms of the circular of 20 February 2012 on prisoners maintai ning bonds with the outside world: "the conditions for physically accessing institutions must not exclude, in principle, 70