6.7 The terms of enforcement of the right of people deprived of liberty to have themselves examined by a doctor are variable Having a general practitioner conduct the examination in the actual confinement facilities is the preferred method as long as it is possible, since this allows verifying the compatibility of the health of the examined person with the measure taken in the actual conditions of its execution. If the doctor is unable to travel, the persons deprived of liberty are presented to hospital services or medical jurisprudence unit, in which the waiting periods are very long, sometimes even to the extent that the time spent in custody is extended. 6.8 The relationship of the departments in charge of the custody with the Prosecutor’s offices should be improved For night-time custody, the most commonly used procedure consists of informing the Prosecutor by fax or email addressed to the court, which is only processed the next morning. Only in very rare cases do these placements into custody systematically result in a telephone call (in general, telephone calls are reserved for criminal cases and those involving minors). Today’s technology ought to allow real-time information. Even during daytime, it happens that the waiting period for contacting the Prosecutor’s Office on telephone is so long that the investigators call them only at the end of their investigations, which means that there can be no oversight of the lawfulness and the execution of the measure, thereby also resulting in the custody measure being prolonged. In a few rare cases, the reasons for extensions of the period for which people are held in custody are labelled as “comfort”, only meant to allow postponing the person’s appearance before the judge to normal working hours. The oversight function of the prosecutors on the places of deprivation of liberty is frequently exercised unsatisfactorily. These annual visits are conducted in the police or gendarmerie facilities, but the resulting comments are of limited scope. In the services that use confinement more infrequently, this oversight is less regular. However, this is an essential guarantee for respecting a person’s rights, especially since it promotes a meticulous maintenance of registers, which is not always observed. In certain constituencies, advisors have been appointed to the Prosecutor’s Office, or several meetings are organised during the year. These measures help improve the quality of the oversight and the effectiveness of the enforcement of rights. Directives must be given to the prosecutors to help them in executing a pertinent oversight. In autumn 2015, the CGLPL had the opportunity to help the government in drafting these texts. The CGLPL recommended to the Government that, despite the scattered nature of the “small” places of deprivation of liberty and their relatively small size, specific national directives must be adopted on the terms of their use and oversight. The preferred option would be to, locally, place the conditions of accommodation, hygiene and enforcement of rights under the control of an identified manager. It is also necessary to carry out general visits of systematic administrative oversights, and for the former to use the control points recommended by the CGLPL. It is also the duty of the legal authority, in the annual oversights provided by law, to systematically ensure the respect of the fundamental rights of the persons deprived of liberty for short periods. The CGLPL has neither the vocation nor the resources to control each place every year. However, it can, as it already has, provide its expertise to those who are given this responsibility. 39