person shall be respected and their rehabilitation sought. The patient is, as far as his condition allows, informed as early as possible and in an appropriate manner about his condition, the decision to admit him, his rights, the remedies that are open to him and the guarantees that have been offered to him. The opinion of this person on the terms of the treatment must be sought and taken into consideration as far as possible. In practice, the procedures and forms for notifying patients of their rights have not yet been fully mastered. Hence, for example, the notification of the rights may be done inappropriately by healthcare supervisors. The measures are sometimes notified on the basis of old forms, the users of which themselves acknowledge that an update is necessary. Even though they are aware of their role, the healthcare supervisors do not appear to always know how to exercise it and lament that the procedure is too complicated. The admissions office sometimes does not perform any check, and it is therefore impossible to know if and when all the decisions were effectively notified. On the other hand, there are some places in which the opposite was observed, which also has limits. The “admissionists” are perfectly knowledgeable of the laws in force and all of the formalities required by law. While this method is secure as regards the procedures, the “human” involvement of the administrators is somewhat lacking, according to the healthcare staff. Certain healthcare supervisors prefer to carry out this task twice, to alleviate its impersonal and administrative nature. Numerous visits highlighted unsatisfactory procedures of notifying and informing the patients. Also, even when the healthcare supervisors are perfectly comfortable with the procedure and the associated pedagogy, sometimes, the notification is made very late (48 - 72 hours) due to a lack of availability. In other cases, in general hospitals, the information given to the patients and their families is insufficient, with a welcome booklet that contains practically nothing on psychiatry, and very little information is displayed in the units. Even when the procedures are adopted and implemented, it is still difficult to provide satisfactory information on patients hospitalised without consent, since for certain healthcare professionals, this obligation seems paradoxical. The observations on patients hospitalised without consent are generally collected, the rights are notified, an information document summarising them is drafted and then displayed in the units, and is often given to the persons involved. Therefore, everything that must be done is done, but the notification lacks pedagogy and everything is done as if the the persons stating the rights see no use in it, since they are, often rightly, convinced of their ethics and the necessity of the treatment that they dispense. In fact, what is the use of giving patients the means to protect themselves from people who only want the best for them? In one of the institutions visited by the CGLPL, these difficulties were identified by the administration department, which made significant efforts in notifying the patients of the measures and informing them of their rights. On observing that informing the patient on the means of recourse, as required by law, were not always properly executed by the healthcare professionals, the administration department set up an administrative staff-healthcare professional pair to carry out the notifications. In this same institution - a general hospital - there was also a welcome booklet specific to psychiatry. The CGLPL visited only one institution in which notifying patients hospitalised without their consent of their rights is not conducted as a general rule, either at the time of admission or even anytime later. The professionals only care about the summons for the hearing by the liberty and custody judge, who himself is not all that concerned about the absence of this notification. 16