Chapter 1 Places of deprivation of liberty in 2015 In 2015, the CGLPL conducted 160 visits, with an average duration of slightly more than three days. Taking into account the size of the teams, this represents 491 days of presence in places of deprivation of liberty. In penal institutions, juvenile detention centres and administrative detention centres, almost all of these visits were second visits and, in very few cases, third visits. Therefore, they allowed measuring the changes in practices. Using these works and in-depth knowledge acquired over the past seven years, the CGLPL wishes to highlight the major themes that currently characterise each category of institution as regards the respect of the fundamental rights of persons deprived of liberty who are held there. 1. In psychiatric treatment, in the context of a great diversity in practices, the reforms of 2011 and 2013 on notifying patients of the measures of hospitalisation without consent, providing information to the patients and the legal check of the liberty and custody judge have not been implemented properly The Contrôleur général of places of deprivation of liberty has made the visits of psychiatric institutions a priority in her mandate. In this respect, psychiatric institutions comprised 60% of the tasks executed for the visits of large-scale institutions in 2015. During these visits, the attention of the inspectors was especially drawn to the question of the use of restraint and seclusion, which will shortly be subject to special studies, as well as to the normal conditions of life of the patients. In fact, questions such as maintaining family bonds, the mandatory use of pyjamas, the definition of free and restricted spaces, sexuality, access to telephones or computers or the management of personal expenses have revealed several disparities that are not always connected to the requirements of the medical treatments. This diversity can be observed between institutions, between departments and sometimes even between floors. These differences are related to the exercising of individual liberties; the observed heterogeneity casts a major doubt on the question of the equality of treatment. These practices often do not result from therapeutic decisions, but from considerations of simple organisation, economy or management. In one place, there was never any telephone booth; in another, there is no Internet connection. In yet another institution, the layout of the rooms forced the department to close down when a person was placed there for treatment without consent. In one department, sexual relations were allowed, while there were not in others and therefore no prevention or educational measure was implemented. In still other places, visits were forbidden at certain times as there was no one to receive visitors. 14