institutions visited in 2015, most judges did not wear their official robes; there was only one case in which the judge and clerk systematically wore their official robes. Healthcare professionals believe that this formality may be a source of anxiety for certain patients. As a rule, the psychiatrist in charge of the patient does not attend the hearing. On the contrary, a nurse accompanies the patient, sometimes systematically and sometimes on request, and it may happen that the JLD has questions for the nurse or asks him/her to speak. In other places, on the contrary, a nurse is very rarely present during the hearing; sometimes, a JLD has even refused entry to a healthcare supervisor. Sometimes, the JLD asks the patient for his/her prior approval of the presence of a person who wishes to attend the hearing. In a hospital, detained patients, along with two healthcare professionals, are escorted by police officers from their room1 until they return to the said room after their court appearance. The police escort generally comprises three officers, but can have up to five; the patients are often handcuffed during the journey and sometimes are kept handcuffed even during the hearing, while police officers attend the hearing. Simply being a prisoner, without any personalised and formal risk analysis, cannot justify such a practice. Strict directives must therefore be given by the Minister of Justice for the proper use of means of restraint during the hearings of the liberty and custody judge. In all of the visited institutions, the prosecution abstains from attending the hearing and limits itself to written requisitions. Nevertheless, certain prosecutors have assigned a judge to these types of cases, who can be contacted over the phone. The Minister of Justice should analyse the experience gained in executing hearings of the liberty and custody judge, taking into account the healthcare professionals, in order to provide them with the best practices and to organise training courses or experience sharing. In general, the relationships between the hospitals, the judges and the lawyers have been described as satisfactory, even though they are not identical everywhere. Not everyone is satisfied with the same thing. Sometimes, the only time the judges meet the psychiatrists is the year-end review meeting chaired by the ARS in the presence of the authorities concerned: prefect, hospital director, Prosecutor of the Republic and president of the TGI. There have never been plans to organise a more informal meeting between doctors and JLD; according to certain judges “it is not needed; everyone must remain in his role: the judge judges and the doctor treats”. On the other hand, some other judges and doctors are extremely in favour of and interested in the idea of holding regular informal meetings, where everyone can express themselves freely. They believe that the annual and formal meetings do not allow working on simple and practical subjects such as the behaviour that ought to be adopted by those involved in the hearing, which they feel is still very uncertain. The CGLPL definitely agrees with this opinion. There are positive examples. Since 2013, a day of exchange between “psychiatry and justice” is organised every year in the CHS. Also, a hospital visit was organised for volunteer lawyers. Such initiatives will probably not be sufficient to bring the required level of maturity to hearings of the JLD, but seem to be a necessary step towards it. The hospitals and courts would have the benefit of organising informal meetings between judges and the healthcare staff, and assign lawyers as and when required. 1 It must be noted here that the inspectors observed a widespread practice of placing imprisoned patients in seclusion rooms, sometimes even restrained, for the entire duration of their stay in the hospital. These placements must not be systematic, but must be subject to a personalised medical decision corresponding to a therapeutic necessity. 20