Overall in this institution, providing information to hospitalised persons is not properly taken into account: neither the welcome booklet nor the internal rules (not updated since 2008) are provided, no information is given in the units on the opening hours of the cafeteria, prayer times or the hotlines to various associations. Moreover, the information, when provided verbally, is not always reliable. In conclusion, the provisions of the Public Health Code appear to be complied with formally, and yet do not fulfil their true goal. A supervision therefore seems to be necessary to ensure the effective updating of the procedures in all of the institutions and to help in reforming it through education; without this, the procedures will undoubtedly discreetly remain useless. It is necessary to come up with a protocol of the terms of informing a patient and notifying him on the measures of treatment without consent. The issuing of this information requires time, consideration and great care. The CGLPL recommends that the Ministry of Health should draw up a model document explaining the various different types of hospitalisation without consent and the means of remedy open to patients, in simple terms. Every patient must also be informed about the rules of living in the hospital and any information useful to his/her stay, via a welcome booklet or by displaying the rules in each room. Finally, hotlines for access to legal advice, based on the model used in certain institutions, must be generalised. These actions require supervisors for the hospitals and must be subject to a systematic visit via common law visits. 1.2 A hearing before the liberty and custody judge is systematic, but the persons involved are still not sufficiently professional The role of the liberty and custody judge is defined in Articles L. 3211-12-1 to L. 3211-12-6 of the Public Health Code. The application of these provisions is systematic, but has certain practical aspects that are not always legitimate. Holding weekly hearings is the most common system, and the principle of mobile court hearings was widespread even before the Law of 2013 made them mandatory. In several cases, the judge holds one session per week in the institution. Therefore, patients only have to be transported to court in case of an emergency or if they are summoned. The feedback is unanimous in showing the benefits of mobile hearings for the peace of mind of the patients. Difficulties mainly crop up when the institution is too far from the seat of the court, and holding hearings is therefore considered to be too time-consuming by the judges. Several judges therefore take turns in holding these hearings, which sometimes causes difficulties in acquiring the necessary competence in psychiatry, which is somewhat complex and requires regular investment, which is not possible when the judges are on continuous rotation. Moreover, certain patients refuse to meet the JLD on the grounds that the latter may also be in charge of family affairs, “which could have negative consequences on a patient, for example in the case of divorces”. In other places, a single judge executes the functions of a JLD; hearings are regular and this makes the processing of dossiers more fluid. In certain remaining cases, there is no room reserved for the hearings of the JLD within the healthcare institution. There are implementation difficulties related to the standards set by law, even though in the court of first instance (TGI), the hearings of the JLD occur in a small room similar to the meeting rooms that exist in every hospital and even though, as we will shortly see, other jurisdictions organise satisfactory mobile hearings without the imposed standards being strictly complied with. 17