are not applicable to it, with no healthcare authority being competent to verify the content and practices of the healthcare in the institution. The oversights of the institution do not offer the guarantees of independence offered by those conducted in the other departments, since the members of the departmental committee for psychiatric treatment of Paris are appointed by the police prefect. Finally, the psychiatric infirmary is not visited by the judges of the competent courts and, in particular, by the State Prosecutor. Certainly, the police prefect ensures that these visits are conducted de facto. However, they are not guaranteed. For these reasons, the CGLPL recommended transferring the resources of the psychiatric infirmary of the police headquarters to a common law hospital. The recommendations of the CGLPL have not yet been taken into account by the Government. However, the law modernising our healthcare system, adopted on its last reading by the National Assembly on 17 December 2015, states that “within a period of six months from the enactment of this law, the Government will present the Parliament with a report on the progress made in the organisation of the psychiatric infirmary of the Paris police headquarters for making it compliant with the protection regime of persons exhibiting mental disorders, who are subject to psychiatric care without consent”. 4. The consequences of the Opinion dated 20 June 2011 relating to access to computers by detainees Article 11 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen states that “the free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the most precious rights of man: any citizen may thus speak, write and print freely, except in cases that constitute an abuse of this liberty, as determined by the law.” This rights is all the more applicable to detainees because, as stated by the Constitutional Council, “the freedom of expression and communication is even more precious as its enforcement is a condition of democracy and one of the guarantees of respecting the other rights and liberties” (Constitutional Council, decision no. 2009-580 dated 10 June 2009). It is therefore the responsibility of the prison administration to guarantee it, subject to only those reservations required for maintaining the security and order of the institutions, for preventing the recurrence of offences and in the interest of the victims (as is indicated in Article 22 of the Prisons Act dated 24 November 2009). In other words, this administration must not force any limits on the freedom of information other than what is strictly necessary for security, the future of the detainees and the rights of the victims. Among current information and communication tools are online services, to which the aforementioned principle also applies. As also indicated by the Constitutional Council in the same decision, “with respect to the generalised development of online services as well as to the importance of these services to participating in democratic life and expressing ideas and opinions”, the right to the free communication of thoughts and opinions “implies the freedom to access these services”. This liberty is all the more important for detainees since, deprived of their liberty to come and go and of a large part of the resulting means of action, computers become a highly preferred means of accessing a large portion of the information from the exterior (press, training, job offers, administrative procedures, learning, games, miscellaneous information). By this opinion, the CGLPL asked the prison administration for a better guarantee of the detainees’ freedom of communication without any limits other than those imposed by security, 56