Moreover, the CGLPL received reports that women were sometimes subject to pat-downs that violated their dignity; in one case, there is not sufficient assurance of women’s dignity being preserved with respect to the policemen in the accommodation areas. However, one example shows how implementing an attentive and strict hierarchy can cause significant improvements between two visits of the Contrôleur général. Contrary to the observations made during the previous visit, it appeared that the concern of the quality of treatment of the detainees and of the respect of their rights was predominant thanks to managers who ensured that this concern was shared, even if it was not executed uniformly. The policemen stay in the living areas, the detainees are called by their surname, the communication of the police officers regarding the detainees is respectful, and meals are adapted to the food habits of the people present. None of the external staff had anything negative to say about the administration of the CRA; on the contrary, one of them stated that “here, we work together to give meaning to what we do”. The CGLPL observed that notifying the detainees of the rights is frequently done with the least possible information, and only in the rare cases in which it is not done by the detaining agency. The operation is rapid, a translation is sometimes provided over the phone and no document summarising the rights is provided to the persons involved. This procedure can sometimes ressemble somewhat of an assembly-line approach, and sometimes the rights of appeal and the rights in detention are notified via a partially erroneous print-out, and the policemen themselves act as interpreters. Lack of activity is a frequent concern in CRA. Often, there is no activity other than television; in some places, an activity room that used to exist has now disappeared, there is no equipment such as games or books, the exercise time is reduced and boredom is rampant. Activities, especially physical ones, must be organised. In principle, the CRA have solitary confinement rooms, the use of which is not always related to reasons based on security or public order. When their use is recorded in a register, which should be done systematically, these rooms may be used for disciplinary reasons. Sometimes, the solitary confinement rooms are designed such that they are worse than the disciplinary wing cells in prisons; the video surveillance covers only a part of the room and there is no rule for their use, nor is there any possibility of appeal. In a few rare cases, these chambers are used very rarely and on sufficient grounds. Finally, extra-prison relationships, especially via visits, are not organised equally. In one place, two visiting rooms with no ad hoc arrangements are available for the detainees; they are not monitored properly. In another place, the visiting room can be blocked from view with a screen, but there is no soundproofing. In yet another place, there were no signposts or place for parking to make visiting easier. Finally, in several cases, mobile phones were confiscated from detainees if they contained an in-built camera, even though there is no rule stating that a person placed in administrative detention must be deprived of all means to communicate with the outside. Even if they are not used often, administrative detention facilities (LRA) remain places that toe the line when it comes to respecting the fundamental rights or needs. In general, the duration of administrative detention in these detention facilities is short, since they are used only while waiting for a transfer to a detention centre. It is rare that a person is detained here for more than the maximum 48 hours, but it does happen sometimes. The rights of defence and access to legal aid are not properly guaranteed in LRA: the lists of lawyers registered in the competent Bar are not displayed; sometimes, they have not made this journey for several years as they have not been paid; the organisation providing aid to foreign 31