This necessity affects all categories of services that have confinement facilities, but is not limited to this scope: it also includes hospitals which persons deprived of liberty are brought for examinations. 6.5 The security measures applied for people in custody or customs detention are sometimes excessive Very often, these people are forced to remove their glasses and bras. Ever since its first activity report in 2008, the Contrôleur général has continuously contested the grounds for this measure, highlighting its lack of alleged effectiveness in terms of safety as well as its evident humiliating consequences on persons in custody, thereby making them feel even more vulnerable. Moreover, apart from a few rare exceptions, handcuffing people in custody while transporting them is followed as if it were a rule; in certain customs facilities, this is even extended to people placed in detention. For these cases, an assessment of the circumstances as well as of the behaviour and profile of the person concerned must result in a more moderate application of the security rules. At the very least, it appears necessary to refrain from handcuffing detainees as much as possible when exposed to the sight of the public, especially in hospitals. Apart from these examples, it is necessary to ensure that the officers and gendarmes who are in charge of implementing the measures of taking people into custody are not encouraged to use excessive precautions due to an excessively extensive definition of their disciplinary responsibility. In fact, once an officer has correctly assessed the risks of a situation and has taken reasonable suitable measures, he should not be held responsible for any unforeseen event. In other terms, the security of the people in custody must be subject to an obligation of due diligence and not an obligation of result. 6.6 The conditions in which people deprived of liberty are provided access to their lawyer are not equally guaranteed In principle, the officers in charge of the measures of taking a person into custody have good relations with the Bars, and good cooperation seems to be a norm. Nevertheless, difficulties persist at the local level: the law enforcement officers sometimes find it difficult to contact the lawyers; the court-appointed lawyers do not always travel; they travel only in the daytime, or only for the 30-minute interview and the first hearing. The confidentiality of the interviews with the lawyers is not properly ensured. With a few rare exceptions, the police stations and gendarmeries do not have facilities dedicated to interviews with lawyers; sometimes, the interviews with the lawyers are even held in a room with windows or in cells with the door kept ajar. On the other hand, the more recent facilities are, in principle, designed to comply with this requirement: a room specifically allocated to accommodate persons in custody or in detention and their lawyers is equipped with a call button, electric sockets and the Internet, and the list of members of the Bar is displayed in it. This description is adequate for an interview room. 38